Sitting of 10 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Utility Goods (Prices)
    Mr. Albuasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has of manufacturers, since the cut in margins on utility goods, refusing to supply direct to retailers.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir.
    Mr. Albu: If I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to cases where manufacturers have set up "phoney" wholesale organisations in order to take the extra margin, will he look into this matter?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, I shall be glad to look into such cases.

    North-East Development Area
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade what changes he proposes to make in the boundaries of the North-East Development Area.
    Mr. H. Wilson: No change in the boundaries of the North-East Development Area is at present contemplated.
    Mr. Chetwynd: But in view of the anxiety that has been aroused recently by Press statements to the effect that changes would take place soon, would my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance that he has no intention of taking Teeside out of the area?
    Mr. Wilson: I cannot be responsible for Press reports of this matter. All I can say is that there has never been any question of this change.

    War Losses, Far East (British Claims)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state when the ex gratia payments to United Kingdom British subjects in respect of losses incurred as a result of Japanese occupation will be made.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Payments under the scheme, which I announced on 27th June in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), were begun on 15th July and are continuing as rapidly as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Skinnard: But is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the claimants under this scheme have received no payment at all so far, and that it is a matter of urgency because their claim relates to furniture which was destroyed and they have not been able to replace it?
    Mr. Wilson: I know that at the beginning of this scheme early this year there were considerable difficulties to be overcome, but I am sure they are being overcome and the rate of dealing with these applications should speed up considerably.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this also includes the Philippines?
    Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that question.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement by Lady Meynell, Secretary of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission, that on returning to England after investigating anti-trust action in America she would break up some trusts; and whether he authorised this pre-judging of the issues on which her Commission is deliberating.
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the pronouncement made in New York by Lady Meynell on the intentions of the Monopoly Commission, and how far this represents Government policy.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The Monopolies Commission is an independent statutory body and I am in no way responsible for the actions and statements of members of the Commission's staff. I did, however, consult the Chairman of the Commission about the report of the Secretary's statements which appeared in one newspaper and he informed me that as soon as this report came to the Secretary's attention, she cabled the Chairman that it did not represent what she had said at all. He has since informed me that the Commission have considered this matter and are fully satisfied that the observations attributed to the Secretary are, in fact, a complete misrepresentation.
    Mr. Keeling: Yes, but when a statement such as this is attributed in the Press to the chief officer of a statutory tribunal, is not public confidence shaken if either the statement or its authenticity is not promptly repudiated? If it could be repudiated, as the right hon. Gentleman says, why was not that done four weeks ago when the statement was published?
    Mr. Wilson: I think the effect of this report is to shake confidence in the newspaper which published it rather than in the Commission. The attitude of the Commission on this question was to await the return of the Secretary so that a full and authoritative statement could be issued.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the President realise that the country is getting a little tired of these constant repudiations of statements which, in fact, are being made, and what evidence has the President to support the conclusion he has reached that this statement was not made?
    Mr. Wilson: I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman are quite unjustified. I have the word of this ex-civil servant who can be thoroughly relied on. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the large number of withdrawals on complaints of misrepresentation, he might recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) had to complain to "The Times" this morning in this respect.
    Mr. Nally: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the tone of the questions just addressed to him is a clear indication of the intention of the Opposition, if they are ever given the power, to sabotage the work of the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Basil Nield: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether his inquiries disclose that this lady denies saying, "I work behind the scenes for political heads. I get stuff ready for campaigns"?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, she has denied that, and also the statement attributed to her that the Monopolies Commission was engaged on "trust busting." The suggestion in this newspaper was obviously nonsense from the start because the whole conception of the work of the Monopolies Commission, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, is not "trust busting" at all but examining the activities of monopolies to see whether they are abusing the powers they hold.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the Minister agree that there are monopolies in this country that need to be broken up—whisky is one of them—and would he not encourage this lady in her alleged desire to do something in this way?
    Mr. Wilson: That is another question. I am not prepared to interfere with the activities of the Monopolies Commission which was set up by this House to perform an impartial and quasi-judicial function.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: To clear up any doubt, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he accepts the principle that no member or officer of a tribunal should prejudge a case upon which the tribunal may be called upon to adjudicate?
    Mr. Wilson: I was not aware that that doubt needed clearing up. Certainly I should have thought that the attitude of the Monopolies Commission was so well-known that it was not even necessary to say that.
    Mr. Asshetonasked the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been expended by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission; and whether he will give an estimate of the amount that is likely to be spent in the future.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The money expended by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission from the date of its appointment in January last to 31st October was approximately £22,500, and the amount likely to be spent in the remaining five months of the current

    1377
    financial year is estimated at £14,000. So far as can be judged at present the Commission estimates that its expenditure in the financial year 1950–51 will be about £43,000.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the President of the Board of Trade confirm that some of the expenditure of this Commission, such as the expenses of Lady Meynell, are provided from Marshall Aid funds?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, it is a fact that a substantial part of the expenses of this visit to the United States came out of Marshall Aid funds.

    Paper-making (Wood Pulp)
    Mr. Beswickasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of present balance of trade difficulties, he will review his policy with regard to importation of wood pulp for paper-making and utilise the paper salvage available in this country.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the need to maintain the competitive standards of the paper-making industry, I should not be justified in restricting the import of woodpulp which is available for currencies we can afford.
    Mr. Beswick: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend is not prepared to see the genuine economies which have been effected by the collection of waste paper now utilised at a time when our need is so much greater?
    Mr. Wilson: Some is being utilised but it is a plain fact that in paper-making by and large it is cheaper to use the imported material rather than the salvage which has been collected.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the percentage of waste paper in the total paper consumption of the Stationery Office?
    Mr. Wilson: They do not consume the waste paper in that particular form.
    Mr. Beswickasked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated value of imports for the current year of wood pulp and paper-making materials; and what proportion of this represents dollar purchases.
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is estimated that the total f.o.b. value of the imports of
    1378
    wood pulp and other materials for paper-making for the current year will be £36,800,000, of which about 10 per cent. represents dollar purchases.
    Mr. Beswick: As it is most important for us to reduce this figure of imports of dollar material, would my right hon. Friend look into this matter again?
    Mr. Wilson: I am advised by those who know about these things technically that the salvage material would not be suitable for the substitution of particular kinds of dollar material, especially sulphite and things of that sort.

    Haircutting (Charges)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will control the charges for haircutting.
    Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen recent announcements of increased charges for hairdressing. I am glad to be able to tell him that they refer to only a small number of hairdressers, and that as a result of discussions with the Central Price Regulation Committee, the responsible trade associations, which represent nearly 20,000 hairdressers throughout the country, have advised their members not to increase hairdressing charges. The few hairdressers who have recently increased their charges have been advised to revert to their old tariff, and I understand that most of them have already done so. The action of the trade associations appears to have been effective, and it seems unnecessary for me to exercise at present any statutory powers to control these charges.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the charges of this industry should be by piecework?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my right hon. Friend please do something to ensure that those who come into the same category as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are not charged as much as those who are well thatched, like the Lord President of the Council?

    Argentina (Discussions)
    Mr. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made recently to procure more stable conditions of trade between this country and the Argentine.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Discussions are now taking place with the Argentine Government and it would be premature for me to make any statement at this stage.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that since we raised this matter at Question time about three weeks ago some progress has been made in the deliberations?
    Mr. Wilson: Some progress has been made but, of course, it takes two sides to reach an agreement.

    Census of Distribution
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some shopkeepers are hesitating to fill up the forms connected with the pilot Census of Distribution upon the grounds that it is part of the Government's policy to establish State-owned shops; and whether he will contribute to the success of this census by stating the Government's policy in this connection.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The pilot Census of Distribution was taken over a year ago and shopkeepers are not being, and will not be, asked to fill in any more of these pilot census forms. The rest of the Question, therefore, does not arise but I take the opportunity of repeating that it is not the Government's policy to socialise shops.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In these circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman dissuade Members of the Government from going about making statements that it is the intention of the Government to run State shops in competition with private shops?
    Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech made by a noble Friend of mine, my noble Friend tells me that in this particular case he was asking his audience to consider various policy issues in question form, but that he most certainly did not offer or advocate policies.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: In those circumstances, would the right hon. Gentleman have a talk with the editor of the "Co-operative News" in order that his noble Friend should not in future be misrepresented?
    Mr. Wilson: The particular statement, which I have seen also in the "Manchester Guardian" and other reputable newspapers, was based on an agency report which was later contradicted.

    Film Industry
    Mr. Blackburnasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to avert the threatened collapse of the British film-producing industry.
    Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to the position disclosed on 7th November by the publication of reports and accounts with respect to one leading organisation engaged in film production. While I very much regret the embarrassments which have overtaken Mr. Rank's companies—a group which has in the past made a unique contribution to the high reputation of British films generally—I cannot agree that these developments confront us with any "threatened collapse of the British film producing industry." The various steps which the Government have taken to support the industry are well known to the House, and I shall, of course, continue to watch the situation closely.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that something like 70 per cent. of the films being shown in this country are American films, and will he bear in mind that whatever happens we do not want any more American films imported than are being imported at present and that we are not prepared, either in direct dollars or in the accumulation of sterling balances, to continue to pay out even on the scale on which we have been paying out?
    Mr. Wilson: The attitude of the Government on that question has been made very fully known in previous statements, but I adhere to what I said before, that the particular events of the past week do not in our view involve any threatened collapse of British film production.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Rank organisation is compelled to cease production next June that will, in fact, be a threatened collapse?
    Mr. Wilson: Over the last year or two, of course, the Rank organisation has very considerably reduced its rate of production, but most, if not all, of the producers

    1381
    who were previously producing for the Rank organisation are now producing for other organisations or are being financed or aided directly by the National Film Finance Corporation.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: Would my right hon. Friend consider not giving any further State money to the film industry until there has been an inquiry into the whole position?
    Mr. Wilson: I have recently received the report of the Gater Committee on production costs in the industry, which, I think, is one of the inquiries that my hon. Friend has in mind. Certainly, money which is being currently lent by the National Film Finance Corporation for the purpose of production is lent only with very careful safeguards as to its use.
    Mr. Austin: In the light of the answer of my right hon. Friend, can the House take it that there is no possibility of further reducing the 45 per cent. film quota?
    Mr. Wilson: The quota is 40 per cent. It was approved by the House and continues until 30th September next year.

    Japanese Export Prices
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received as to whether the abolition of export floor prices for all Japanese export goods except silk applies to raw silk or to silk piecegoods.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Floor prices have been maintained for both raw silk and silk piecegoods.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern at the possibility of goods being dumped by the Japanese, and was this matter discussed with the American authorities before the statement by General MacArthur was issued by the British Government?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir.

    Babies' Napkins
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now take steps to increase the supply of babies' napkins to the home market.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have taken all practicable steps to help secure increased production, and I have impressed on the manufacturers the importance of maintaining an adequate supply on the home market.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these articles are very essential and that many mothers, at least in my constituency, are finding it quite impossible to obtain them? Is he further aware that, so long as we have a Labour Government, there will be an increasing number of healthy users of these articles?
    Mr. Wilson: I am certainly well aware, from domestic circumstances, of the importance of this particular commodity and that, among other reasons, is why pressure has been put on those concerned.
    Dr. Segal: Is the House to regard my right hon. Friend's decision on this matter as binding?
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the course of the last weekend it was quite impossible to buy a baby's napkin in the city of Plymouth?

  CRIMES OF VIOLENCE (STATISTICS)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of people attacked with violence or murdered during the first nine months of 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Figures are available only for the first seven months of this year. During that period, 3,312 persons were the victims of offences of murder, attempted murder, wounding, robbery with violence, assault with intent to rob, and extortion with threats. During the first seven months of 1947 and 1948 the figures were 2,694 and 3,375 respectively.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman comparable figures for the periods of Tory and Liberal rule?

  CONTRACEPTIVES (SLOT MACHINE SALES)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have so far notified

  1383
  their intention of adopting the model by-law to prevent the sale of contraceptives from slot machines.
  Mr. Ede: It is too early to give any figure. Local authorities are not required to inform me of their intention to adopt a by-law. The statute requires that a by-law made by a local authority shall be open to public inspection and advertised for at least one month before application is made to me for confirmation.
  Mr. Janner: In view of the state of public opinion on this matter, will not my right hon. Friend try to find out from local authorities, by some method, when they are proposing to produce these bylaws, so that at least the country may know what is happening?
  Mr. Ede: From my observations of the Press, I think a very considerable use is being made of this permission. I do not think that, following the circular I recently sent out, I need send another at present.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that he will closely watch this matter, in view of the clearly expressed feelings of the House on this matter a fortnight ago and also the feelings in many responsible quarters that the matter should have been dealt with on a national, rather than a local basis?
  Mr. Ede: In regard to the first question, I am watching this very carefully and I am bound to say that my observations lead me to think that the response has been very gratifying and in accordance with the wish of the House. I think there are sound reasons, which I gave to the House in answer to Questions, that it is better to place full local responsibility in this matter, than to rely on central administration and control.

  ELECTORAL REGISTER
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a servant of the Crown abroad may, in his Service declaration, give the address of an hotel or boarding house in the United Kingdom as the address at which he would be residing but for such service.
  Mr. Ede: A person commits an offence under Section 6 (10) of the Representation of the People Act, 1948, if he makes a service declaration when he knows that it contains a statement which is false. Subject to that, a person may give any address in the United Kingdom. The validity of a declaration is not a matter for me to determine, but for the electoral registration officer, or the courts on appeal against his decision. I am, however, not aware of any ground on which a registration officer would be entitled, having regard to Section 6 (5, a) of the Act, to reject a declaration because the address given was that of an hotel, or boarding house.
  Mr. Keeling: May we take it that what the Secretary of State says applies also to the wife of a civil servant abroad, who is likewise entitled to a vote?
  Mr. Ede: Oh, yes. This is a matter for the registration officer to bear in mind. There is an appeal from him to the courts if the applicant is dissatisfied with his decision.
  Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make provision to enable electors residing at a distance of more than two miles from the nearest polling station to apply to be put on the postal voters list.
  Mr. Ede: This would require legislation, of which I regret I can offer no prospect.
  Mr. Amory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are voters in my constituency for whom, I understand, the nearest polling station will be three and a half miles away and, in order to ensure that right shall triumph, that seems rather a long way to expect them to go?
  Mr. Ede: The recent Act very considerably improved opportunities for voters to get to polling places near their residences, if they so desired and made application. I have considered a number of applications and granted them where the facilities appeared to me not to be reasonable.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he has considerably improved the position when my constituents have to walk more than three miles owing to the limited use of motor cars which is allowed?
  Mr. Ede: It is the case that 30 electors can present a petition to me asking that an additional polling place shall be provided. I have received a number of such applications and, on the whole, I have granted them.

  DEPORTATION (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now initiate legislation to give him power to deport from Great Britain citizens of the British Commonwealth and Empire, not born in these islands, who have been convicted of crimes involving violence, fraud, or living on immoral earnings.
  Mr. Ede: Any extension of my powers to deport aliens which would empower me to deport also British subjects, or certain classes of British subjects, would open wide issues of such grave importance to Commonwealth interests that I am not prepared to make any proposals for this purpose at the present time.
  Mr. Blackburn: While fully appreciating the constitutional point which the Home Secretary has raised, may I ask whether it is not a fact that a great deal of trouble is caused to the police today, not only in London, but elsewhere, by the fact that this small minority of British subjects, not born in this country, who are pimps or guilty of crimes of violence for which they have been convicted, cannot be deported?
  Mr. Ede: No. I examined this matter when this issue was raised some months ago and there is no proof that these people, in proportion to their numbers, give the police more trouble than the native-born population.

  EX-ENEMY PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the case of ex-enemy prisoners of war working in this country as civilians, he will consider arranging for them to become naturalised after a due lapse of lime, should they desire this.
  Mr. Ede: Any foreigner is eligible to apply for a certificate of naturalisation after he has fulfilled the statutory residential qualification of five years' residence. In the case of the persons referred to the period of residence will begin to run from the date of their attaining civilian status.

  CYRIL SCHWARTZ (SENTENCE)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the condition of Mr. Cyril Schwartz who was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for charges in connection with the march held in Hackney in September; if he is aware that Mr. Schwartz was suffering with ulcerative colitis; what treatment he is receiving and at which hospital; and if his period in hospital will be deducted from the period of the sentence to be served.
  Mr. Ede: Mr. Schwartz is receiving appropriate treatment in Lambeth Hospital for ulcerative colitis and I am informed that he is making good progress. His period in hospital counts as part of his sentence.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Hospital Accommodation, Corby
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Health when and to what extent it is proposed to provide hospital accommodation in the growing town of Corby.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Oxford Regional Hospital Board are strengthening and developing the Kettering group of hospitals to serve a large area, including Corby, and propose as soon as possible to provide out-patient clinics and a maternity home there.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a present need for more hospital accommodation in Corby and that that need is likely to increase with the projected development of the town?
    Mr. Bevan: I think the regional hospital board are fully aware of the position.

    Arthritis (Treatment)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to encourage the production of the anti-arthritis discovery, Cortisone.
    Mr. Bevan: The Medical Research Council, in touch with the Nuffield Foundation, is promoting intensive research into Cortisone and other substances that might take its place and be available in adequate amounts. Various pharmaceutical firms, with whom my officers are in close contact, are also actively engaged in this field. I am prepared to render all the assistance in my power.
    Colonel Hutchison: While it is not desirable to raise public hopes too high in this connection, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there should not be any access to, or liaison with, the Mayo Clinic in America where I believe the discovery was made?
    Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. and gallant Member can take it for granted that all the scientific information that can be made available is made available in this field, but what we are looking for is a material out of which this substance can be cheaply and plentifully made.
    Mr. Assheton: Is it not a fact that there is a great danger of raising hopes too high in this particular regard?
    Mr. Bevan: As the House is aware, I hope, I am always anxious not to raise hopes too high in these fields. I believe there have been many expectations raised already and, perhaps, some grievous disappointments.

    National Federation of Hospital Officers
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Health if he will recognise the National Federation of Hospital Officers as a negotiating trades union.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the Debate on the Adjournment on 25th October.
    Sir I. Fraser: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the banning of this union is not in any way related to the fact that they are non-political?
    Mr. Bevan: It has nothing at all to do with it. In the health field, as the House knows very well, we do not permit any politics to intervene.

  COUNCIL HOUSES, REIGATE (SALE)
  Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Health why the application made by the Reigate Borough Council for permission under Section 79 of the Housing Act, 1936, to sell council houses to existing tenants who desire to purchase them, has been refused in view of the fact that such sales will not diminish the amount of housing accommodation available.
  Mr. Bevan: As the council have been informed, I am unable to agree at the present time to the sale of council houses in view of the importance of ensuring that as many houses as possible are available for letting at reasonable rents to persons who are in urgent need of them.
  Mr. Touche: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how a house becomes less a house because the tenant becomes the owner?
  Mr. Bevan: The answer is that as soon as a person became the owner of a house the reversion would always go to those who had the money to acquire it.

  FOOD POISONING (CAUSES)
  Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Health to what causes he attributes the recent increase in cases of food poisoning.
  Mr. Bevan: No precise answer can be given. But more information is being received, analysis of which may throw further light on the causes of the increase. So far as concerns pre-war figures, I should point out that the apparent increase is probably largely due to increased information and investigation.
  Mr. Morrison: Can the Minister say whether he has gone into the details of food kept in cold storage over long periods? Does he not think that that has something to do with it?
  Mr. Bevan: All the inquiries that are relevant are being made. I would not alarm people unduly by assuming that there is an absolute increase.
  Mr. Peter Freeman: Would my right hon. Friend consider what steps can be taken to make the facts of such food poisoning public, as they are often suppressed both in respect of the nature of the food and the reason for the poisoning and as a result the public are not aware of the facts?
  Mr. Bevan: I am entirely unaware that the facts are suppressed. Where there is a fatality, and a coroner's inquest is held all the facts are very well known.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the standard of personal hygiene of many people in this country is still deplorably low, and that this has an important bearing on this question?
  Mr. Hubbard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent series of articles in the "Daily Herald" will go a long way towards the education of the public in this matter?
  Mr. Bevan: I think that there is growing awareness of the necessity of cleanly habits in the handling of food in the shops and depots and in the homes. I am hoping that the public education which is now taking place will have the effect of raising standards.

  AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (MINISTRIES)
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for economy, and in order to ensure greater co-ordination of the interests of consumers and producers, he will combine the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Food to form one Ministry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir; I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 12th April last.
  Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that circumstances have changed slightly since 12th April last, and does he agree that a merger of these two Ministries would enable a substantial
  1390
  saving in administrative costs to be made as well as greatly to improve the co-ordination of the interests of consumers and producers? If he does agree on those two points will the Prime Minister say why he declines to alter his previous decision?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is repeating a supplementary question which has been answered on many occasions. I do not think that the interests of consumers and producers would necessarily best be served by an amalgamated Ministry. I am not so sure whether that would bring about any great economy in staff and expenses. I am not persuaded at present that there would be any advantage in doing what the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the particular case of horticulture is given any consideration on the question of whether some transfer of functions from one Ministry to another might not be usefully made?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Scollan: Has my right hon. Friend considered the practicability of giving fisheries a Ministry of its own as it is obviously too big a matter to be part of a Ministry dealing also with agriculture?
  Mr. Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry of Food is already concerned with the interests both of consumers—wholly, we hope—and producers—to a mild extent—and is he aware that there has been confusion between the functions of the Ministry of Food when they are concerned with production and the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure a better co-ordination of the work of these two Ministries in that respect in future?
  The Prime Minister: That was the fourth supplementary question asked last April.

  INSHORE FISHING (NEW VESSELS)
  Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture how many vessels have been built with the assistance of the Inshore Fishing Industries Act, 1945,

  1391
  during 1949; and what was the total amount granted and lent under that Act up to the nearest available date.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Forty fishing vessels have been built in Scotland and 29 in England and Wales this year under the Inshore Fishing Industry Act, 1945. The total amounts granted and lent under the Act to 1st November, 1949, in Scotland were £529,993 and £895,852 respectively, and in England and Wales £169,249 and £305,260.
  Mr. Marshall: Has there been any alteration in policy with regard to this Act whereby vessels that are not new cannot come within the terms of the Act? Also when there are two joint owners of one fishing vessel, one of whom leaves and no longer wishes to fish, can the remaining owner obtain help under this Act?
  Mr. Williams: In reply to the hon. Member's first supplementary question, I know of no change such as that which he indicated. I should require notice of the second part of his supplementary question.

  AGRICULTURE

    Women's Land Army (Winding-Up)
    Coloner Ropnerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the concern which is felt by farmers at his decision to bring to an end the Women's Land Army; and whether he is satisfied that this decision will not adversely affect farmers' efforts to achieve production targets.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have no evidence that this decision has caused concern among farmers, and for the reasons given in my recent announcement, I am satisfied that it should not adversely affect production.
    Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it was only comparatively recently that he was encouraging women to enter into long-term contracts with the Women's Land Army, and will he say what has caused him to reverse his policy?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir. It is because the numbers of the Women's Land Army
    1392
    have fallen from over 50,000 to less than 15,000, and we no longer feel it necessary to maintain a national and county organisation for such small numbers. On the other hand, I have expressed the hope that the majority of these members of the Women's Land Army who are still working will remain in agriculture.
    Mr. Tolley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, after an examination of the facts, that in these days of full and overproduction in industry for the export drive labour will be available to make up the loss to agriculture which will be caused by bringing to an end the Women's Land Army?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, I believe that labour is being recruited at a rate which will enable farmers to reach their targets. I repeat my hope that these members of the Women's Land Army will not leave agriculture but will continue to work as employees of farmers.
    Mr. Lipson: How much will be saved by the closing down of the Women's Land Army?
    Mr. Williams: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister satisfied that the rate of wages which will be paid to these women workers if they go into land work in the normal way will attract them?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.

    Sand Removal, Cornwall
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Agriculture how much sand has been removed from Constantine Bay, Cornwall, since 1st January, 1949; how much subsidy has been paid for it by his Department; and what method of checking the quantity removed and its ultimate disposal he has instituted.
    Mr. T. Williams: Between 1st January and 30th September this year about 44,000 cubic yards of calcareous sand were taken from Constantine Bay for agricultural purposes and the subsidy, including a contribution towards the costs of spreading the sand, amounted to approximately £16,250. I have no power to control the quantity of sand removed from the beach but my local officers carry out inspections to ensure that the

    1393
    material on which subsidy is paid is delivered to farms and used for soil improvement.
    Mr. Stokes: What form of check has my right hon. Friend? Is he really satisfied that there are not grave irregularities which are referred to locally, whereby his Department is bilked of a lot of money? What is the system of checking?
    Mr. Williams: The system of checking is very largely that of surprise visits by my inspectors both to farmers and hauliers, when they inspect their records. Adequate check is kept by that means.
    Mr. Stokes: Have my right hon. Friend's inspectors gone down there on Christmas Day, at midnight or on Sundays—at all those extraordinary times when these hauliers are making these big hauls for themselves?
    Mr. Williams: I understand that a constant watch is maintained by my inspectors on the sand which is removed.
    Brigadier Head: Will the Minister say why he is putting a subsidy on sand? Is it perhaps to bring down the price of sugar?
    Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that sand removed from this bay is playing a very valuable part in improving the fertility of the soil? Cornish farmers value it very much.
    Mr. Williams: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) will have a word with his hon. and gallant Friend about it.

    Milk Production (Cleanliness)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the chief milk advisory officer to the Lancashire Agricultural Executive Committee to the effect that carelessness and dirty habits among producers and their employees are spoiling large quantities of milk; and what steps are being taken by his Department to improve matters, especially in relation to personal hygiene.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. The new Milk and Dairies Regulations which came into force on 1st October require certain hygenic precautions in the production and handling of milk, including the observance of personal cleanliness by producers
    1394
    and their employees. It is my intention to ensure that these conditions are enforced as strictly as possible.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As in a greater or lesser degree almost every part of the country is affected by this very important question, will my right hon. Friend consider making representations to all county agricultural executive committees that they should get to work on it in their own particular areas?
    Mr. Williams: The county executive committees have already been informed of their responsibilities, and I am sure they will carry them out.
    Dr. Segal: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that carelessness and dirty habits among milk producers are more prevalent in Lancashire than in other parts of the country?

    Acreage Payments
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture why his Department are insisting that claims for acreage payments should have been made by 1st October without the grant of any extensions of time, whereas during the previous season claims did not have to be made until April and even then some elasticity was granted.
    Mr. T. Williams: Acreage payments for 1949 are being made for the first time under the provisions of a Statutory Instrument and in such cases it is usual to fix a limited period for the submission of applications. Powers were reserved in the instrument to accept late applications in special circumstances and as there has been some faulty or ineffective publicity I have sent fresh instructions to county agricultural executive committees with a view to avoiding hardship.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that September is a very busy time for farmers, especially for small farmers, and that it is much better to try to leave these administrative tasks until the winter months, when a farmer has more time on his hands for that sort of thing? Will he kindly bear that in mind in future?
    Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister consider revising his method of payment and pay according to the amount produced and not according to the number of acres? Are there not farmers who

    1395
    sow seed and are not concerned about what they get from the ground so long as they get the subsidy from the Minister?
    Mr. Williams: We have already the power either to withhold or reduce the subsidy if we find that proper cultivation is not being carried out.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known of a case such as that quoted by the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery)?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture what changes it is proposed to make in the payment of the acreage subsidy on potatoes.
    Mr. T. Williams: The changes contemplated in 1950 are:

    1. The rate of payment will be £10 per acre, instead of £12 for the first 10 acres and £8 per acre thereafter.

    2. Farmers will be required to grow at least ¼ of an acre of potatoes instead of 1/10th of an acre in order to qualify for acreage payment, and payment will be made for each complete ¼ acre instead of each complete 1/20th.

    In addition, although I do not propose to make any change in the good husbandry provisions of the Crop Acreage Payments Order, more effective steps will be taken in administering those provisions to ensure that growers whose crops are adversely affected through wilful negligence whether in cultivation or harvesting will be liable to the withholding or reduction of the sum otherwise due.
    Mr. Dye: Will there be any obligation on those who receive the subsidy to sell for human consumption all the potatoes for which the acreage payment is made?
    Mr. Williams: I suppose that the obligation rests there so long as the Ministry of Food require them for human consumption.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the best method of getting potatoes is to do away with the subsidy altogether and pay a right price for the article produced?
    Mr. Williams: If the soil and climate throughout England and Wales were uniform we might do that.
    Mr. D. Marshall: What is the difference in the overall total payment?
    Mr. Williams: That would depend on a number of factors, including the acreage planted.

    Hostels (Expenditure)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to reduce expenditure upon agricultural hostels.
    Mr. T. Williams: County agricultural executive committee pool labour is being progressively reduced, and the hostel accommodation serving this labour is being reduced to match. About 150 hostels have been given up in the last six months. Concurrently every effort will continue to be made to secure economy in the operation of the hostels which remain.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that these hostels are occupied very largely by unemployables? These hostels should be done away with as soon as possible, and the money made available to the Minister of Health in order to build houses for farm workers at rents they can afford to pay.
    Mr. Williams: I am not aware that these hostels are occupied by unemployables. The hon. Member cannot ever have visited one of them or he would not dare to make that suggestion.
    Mr. Baldwin: I have employed such people.

    Boars (Licensing)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Agriculture what expense he incurred with regard to pigs in purported pursuance of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, before 24th October, 1949, the date appointed by Statutory Instrument, 1949, No. 1895, for the application of the said Act to pigs as to cattle; and by what authority he incurred this expense.
    Mr. T. Williams: The expenditure incurred up to 23rd October, 1949, in administering the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Boars) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1945, cannot be ascertained exactly because the work formed part only of the duties of the Ministry's livestock husbandry officers,

    1397
    but I estimate that it did not exceed a total of £10,000. This expenditure was incurred under Section 12 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931; Section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, and the regulations made under those Acts.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister agree that this legislation had no application in effect until the appointed day? What day was appointed before 24th October of this year?
    Mr. Williams: The day appointed was the day appointed previously under the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister say what that date was?
    Mr. John Paton: May I ask if the bulls referred to were of Irish origin?

    Land Drainage (Report)
    Mr. Deerasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to state when he expects to receive the report of the Heneage Committee set up to deal with land drainage.
    Mr. T. Williams: I understand that the Committee hope to report by about the middle of next year.

    Feedingstuffs (Poultry)
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider introducing new regulations to enable an allocation of feedingstuffs to be made to the seriously disabled who are medically advised that they can carry out poultry keeping as an occupation.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have much sympathy with the hon. Member's suggestion and when it becomes possible to revise poultry ration scales I will gladly consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to see if a new category of seriously disabled persons could be created for rationing purposes on the lines suggested.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but would he agree that it would not be a very difficult problem in view of the fact that the ex-Service man is already treated in this way? I am only asking that the civilian disabled person should be treated in the same way.
    Mr. Williams: It would be rather difficult at this moment, but the matter is under constant review.
    Mr. Collins: Is it not the case that disabled ex-Service men are also under certain conditions, to secure an allocation of feedingstuffs?

    Fowl Pest, Scotland
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Minister of Agriculture which counties in Scotland have been affected by fowl pest; whether any conclusion has been reached regarding the origin of the outbreak; and what steps are being taken to deal with it.
    Mr. T. Williams: Outbreaks of fowl pest on the mainland of Scotland have been confirmed in the counties of Aberdeen, Angus, Inverness, Renfrew, Ross and Cromarty and Wigtown. In addition there have been outbreaks on several islands in the Orkney, Shetland, Outer Hebrides and Inner Hebrides groups. A single outbreak has been found on the Bass Rock in the Firth of Forth. The first outbreak was discovered in the Orkney Islands, but, as the disease bad existed there for about a month before it became known to my Department, it has not been possible, so far, to assign any definite cause to that outbreak. Every effort is being made to ensure early notification of any suspicious circumstances amongst poultry flocks and the usual measures of slaughter and disinfection are being taken to deal with the disease.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a ban has been placed on the movement of live or dead poultry out of any of these affected areas?
    Mr. Williams: I believe that an order does exist preventing movement to markets, and so forth.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Does that apply to all the affected areas?
    Mr. Scollan: Is not it the case that this fowl pest is actually being carried by wild fowl, and that in those circumstances it is impossible to stamp it out?
    Mr. Williams: I can only say that my veterinary officers are doing their best to stamp out fowl pest in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
    Sir B. Neven-Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this ban on movement has been applied to all the affected areas?
    Mr. Williams: I cannot say without notice.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now exempt from Purchase Tax instantaneous water heaters, suitable for operation with bottled gas.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to his similar Question on 25th October.
    Mr. Erroll: In view of the delay, can the hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be reached?
    Mr. Jay: As soon as possible.

    Exports (Angola)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether exports to Angola constitute exports to a hard currency country for the purposes of his regulations.
    Mr. Jay: There are no regulations for the purposes of which a definition of hard currency markets is required. We are anxious to expand our exports to Angola as well as to all other parts of the Portuguese monetary area.
    Mr. Erroll: Is this so that increased importations of diamonds and other precious stones can take place from Angola?
    Mr. Jay: Generally speaking, the Portuguese monetary area is a desirable market, because we are importing a considerable amount of essential commodities from that area.

    Economy Measures
    Mr. Asshetonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed administrative economies are to be related to the net sums granted to the various Departments in the Appropriation Act, 1949, or to the as yet
    1400
    unpresented Estimates for the financial year 1950–51.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his speech in the House on 26th October, we cannot expect the programme of economies to come into full effect in the current financial year but it will be fully effective next year.
    Mr. Assheton: That does not quite answer my Question. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether in fact they are related to the net sums granted last year?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Obviously they will bear some relation to the Estimates which have been presented to the House for this year, which is the year I think the right hon. Gentleman means. It will mean, possibly, that fewer Supplementary Estimates will thus have to be presented.
    Mr. Assheton: Are the economies related to the Estimates for next year or are they related to expenditure in the current year? This is most important.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They will become fully effective next year. By that I mean that the Estimates next year will be less than they otherwise might have been.
    Mr. Assheton: In other words, they are not related to the expenditure during this year at all?

    American Artwork (Imports)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent a dollar drain is incurred in the use of American artwork by British publications.
    Mr. Jay: I regret this information is not available.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is there any reason why American artwork should be imported into this country at all under present conditions, and is my hon. Friend aware that a good many British commercial artists are being put out of work as a result of this kind of thing happening?
    Mr. Jay: I do not think that we want to be too restrictive in regard to imports of artistic and literary work.

    Persia (Payments)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what grounds His Majesty's Government have paid the Persian Government £7,500,000 for the war-time use of railways in Persia;
    (2) what proportion of the £7,500,000 now to be paid to Persia will be in transferable or convertible sterling; and what proportion in gold or hard currency.
    Mr. Jay: As the answer is a long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: While I accept that, will the hon. Gentleman please say on what basic grounds this claim has been allowed in the case of Persia? Surely there can be no clearer case. If anybody owed any money at the end of the war, it was the Persians who owed it to us. Why do we now give them £7,500,000 of which 60 per cent. is to be paid in gold?
    Mr. Jay: The basic ground is because services were given to this country by the Persian railways during the war.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: A great many services were given by this country to Persia during the war. If we are now to pay £7,500,000 for the use of the railways, of which 60 per cent. is in gold, how can we ever expect to make up our gold and dollar deficit?
    Mr. Jay: The sum in question is, of course, a net figure.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Then this represents another addition to the already heavy total of unrequited exports?
    Mr. Jay: Not necessarily. That depends upon the whole balance of payments between ourselves and Persia.
    Mr. Stanley: Is not that answer a little disingenuous? That in fact gives the Persians the right to call for £7,500,000 more of exports than we get from them.
    Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that we gave £60 million to the shareholders of the British Railways for the use of the railways during the war?
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Following is the answer:
    His Majesty's Government have paid to the Persian Government a sum of £8,206,676 6s. 10d. The figure originally agreed was £5,700,000, but was subsequently written up.
    The sum represented the balance due to the Persian Railways on account of British military traffic carried during the war up to 30th June, 1945, the total charges for which were of the order of £19 million.
    When the railway settlement was under discussion with the Persian Government in 1946 it was agreed that the sum subsequently determined to be payable to the Persian Government should be settled in accordance with the financial arrangements then in force between Persia and ourselves. This implied payment of 60 per cent. in gold and the remainder in sterling to the account of the Persian Government, which bore a revaluation guarantee.
    The Persian Government has agreed to postpone the exercise of their right to obtain this 60 per cent. in gold, provided that it will be available to them in case of need. Payment of the sum of £5.7 million agreed with the Persian Government has therefore been made in sterling and the amount written up to £8.2 million in accordance with the revaluation guarantee.
    Persian sterling is transferable to other transferable account countries and also to American account in payment for essential supplies not obtainable for sterling on equivalent terms.

    Informers (Payment)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions payments have been made to informers whose information has led to the detection or prevention of offences against the Exchange Control Act.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: None, Sir.
    Mr. Blackburn: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on that answer, might I ask him whether he is aware that the system of making payments to informers conflicts with our sense of fair play, and that people of this kind are generally despised? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend overrule the previous

    1403
    written reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and indicate that he has no intention of paying any sum to informers?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am afraid that in other directions—in the case of Customs and Excise, for example—this practice goes back for very many years; but I will, of course, call the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the wish now expressed by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the possibility of a reward may have some effect upon the veracity of the evidence upon which he will have to rely?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I have said, no payment has been made in this instance. Where moneys have been paid for information in other cases the information has been very closely checked before any reward was paid.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it is not the intention of the Government to pay children for informing against their parents in accordance with the practice of totalitarian countries?
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the extent to which breaches of the Exchange Control Act occur which it is intended to restrict by this method, and can he say whether there are other departments of the law besides this one, in which the police use informers?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I indicated that under certain earlier Acts, Customs and Excise have power to pay for evidence, if they think that proper. There is a limit of £50. Above that figure Treasury sanction has to be given. I am afraid that I could not give any more information than that.
    Mr. Marplesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been paid out of the Exchequer as reward to persons who have given information relative to income tax evasion from the beginning of this Parliament.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In the period mentioned the sums paid to informers by the Board of Inland Revenue amounted in all to £438.
    Mr. Marples: Now that rewards to informers are a permanent and essential feature of the policy of the Socialist Government, is the Minister satisfied that he is getting good value for money for this class of work and, in this connection, will he consult the Soviet authorities who reward their informers in Buchenwald only with cigarettes and not with money?
    Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been the practice for many years for commercial organisations, including, to my knowledge, insurance companies and one or two large engineering firms, to pay money to informers who inform the proprietors of those organisations of offences committed in those places or against clients of the insurance companies concerned.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware, and will he confirm, that these payments were not begun by the present Government but by previous Governments, so that it would be much better if hon. Members directed their condemnation, not at the informer, but at the people who are guilty of black market offences in currency?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I thought I made it quite clear in reply to an earlier question that this practice has been going on for many years. It is at least 60 years old.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many rich people in this country pay accountants a very great deal of money in order to help them to evade their proper Income Tax.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it the policy of the Opposition to protect people who evade the law?
    Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether any sum paid to a common informer would be regarded for the purposes of Income Tax as earned income?
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is it not clear that the practice was begun and has been continued by the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman thoroughly satisfied with the support given by his own supporters to this practice of the common informer?

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider issuing a short-dated stock, on terms similar to those of the 3 per cent. Savings Bonds 1955–65 issue, to cover the payment of post-war credits.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why I get such a short reply? Has he really considered this suggestion and what are his reasons against it?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would be inflationary. That in itself would prevent my right hon. and learned Friend from adopting the suggestion.
    Mr. Taylor: But surely it is the intention of the Government to settle these payments at some time or other? Why should not this stock be issued to enable these older people, who otherwise will never benefit from this payment, to get the benefit now?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: But older people do get them now. A woman of 60 and a man of 65 can now draw post-war credits.

    Gold (Dollar Price)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions were given to the British representative at the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund in America at which it was decided that there should be no change in the dollar price of gold.
    Mr. Jay: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the resolution placed on the agenda of the fourth annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund by the Union of South Africa. This resolution did not relate to the official dollar price of gold, but to gold sales at premium prices. The resolution was taken by a committee of the Board of Governors which recommended that the resolution he referred to the Executive Board for study and report to the Governors. This was in accordance with the instructions given to the British representative. The recommendation was accepted, and so
    1406
    no decision on the substance of the resolution was taken.
    Mr. Stokes: I could not hear half of that answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that I was not referring to that resolution at all, and that I merely want to know whether the British representative at this meeting was instructed or was not instructed to press for a rise in the dollar price of gold? That is the question to which I want an answer.
    Mr. Jay: As I have explained, that question did not arise and, therefore, no instructions were necessary.
    Mr. Stokes: Might I ask whether neither my hon. Friend nor his right hon. and learned Friend understand the significance of a difference in the dollar price of gold? Surely some instructions were given to the British representative who went there?
    Mr. Jay: As I have informed my hon. Friend before, the question of the dollar price of gold is a question for the Government of the United States.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the continued dissatisfaction which I have got from both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  ENTERTAINMENT DUTY
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GEOFFREY COOPER:
  75. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds he absolved from the payment of entertainment tax an American play entitled "A Streetcar named Desire," now playing at the Aldwych Theatre.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the interest in Question No. 75, could you assume that the clocks are three minutes fast, as I expect they are?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we have come to the end of Questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 14TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of a Procedure Motion relating to the Committee stage of the Parliament Bill;
Committee stage and Third Reading of the Parliament Bill.
TUESDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Distribution of German Enemy Property Bill;
Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill;
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of the Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill;
Second Reading of the following Consolidation Bills—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and Marriage Bill [Lords.]
THURSDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Charity of Walter Stanley in West Bromwich Bill;
Committee and remaining stages of the War Damaged Sites Bill;
Committee and remaining stages of the Married Women (Restraint upon Anticipation) Bill [Lords.]
Mr. Churchill: Am I right in assuming that discussions through the usual channels would suggest that nuts will come on the week after next?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. That matter has been dealt with, as the right hon. Gentleman requested last week, and we are making arrangements for it to be taken the week after next.
Mr. John Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if, in view of the very many
1408
important questions that have to be discussed in the foreign affairs Debate, he thinks that one day is enough?
Mr. Morrison: I have not got any more time, and foreign affairs Debates do take place fairly frequently over the year. I am not complaining, because they are important. I thought that one day was about right this time, and, in any case, I am afraid that I have not got the extra time.
Mr. M. Philips Price: Will my right hon. Friend consider an allocation of time at an early date for considering the question of the export trade to the North American Continent and the means of improving it, in view of the very great importance of the matter?
Mr. Morrison: That, of course, was a matter relevant to the two recent economic Debates, and I am afraid I could not find special time for a Debate on it.
Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have not yet had a Debate on the first year's working of the British Transport Commission, and that the second year's working is running swiftly to its close? Can he say whether it is likely that we may have a Debate in the near future?
Mr. Morrison: It might be better if that was left to the usual channels. The Government are in process of giving two days of debate for the public corporations and if it is to be pursued it should be pursued through the usual channels. I am very anxious that there should be adequate time to discuss these matters, but it is not going to be too easy between now and Christmas.
Mr. John Hynd: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we might have an early Debate on the proceedings at Strasbourg, or whether that would have to come out of the foreign affairs Debate time?
Mr. Morrison: I presume it would be in order in the foreign affairs Debate.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with the operation of the Catering Wages Act, and supported by

1409
hon. Members of all parties, and whether he will give time for a discussion on that Motion?
[That, in the opinion of this House, an inquiry should be held to examine the workings, application and effects of the Catering Wages Act, together with Orders and Regulations made under the Act, and make recommendations.]
Mr. Morrison: I know the interest which is shown in a number of circles in this matter, and I appreciate that, but, at the moment, I do not see any prospect of finding time for a Debate. Whether or not it could be done on the Adjournment Motion is another matter.
Mr. Oliver: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he can say when it is intended to introduce a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation to householders whose property is damaged by reason of mining subsidence?
Mr. Morrison: That matter is under consideration, but I am afraid I am not able to make a statement at this moment. I appreciate the interest there is in it among hon. Members representing mining constituencies.
Mr. Murray: May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider today's business? Some of us back benchers feel that the time allowed for the Debate today will mean that there will be only about three hours available for the back benchers after the Front Bench spokesmen have had all the time they want. Could he agree to an extension for an hour tonight?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think we can do so at this stage, Mr. Speaker. No doubt what my hon. Friend has said will have been heard by some of the potential Front Bench speakers.
Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Damage Amendment Bill passed through Committee upstairs today without a Division, that it passed the Floor of the House without a Division, as it did in the Committee upstairs, and will he consider providing time for this Bill to be given its Third Reading in this House?
Mr. Morrison: I cannot make any statement on that matter.
Mr. D. J. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend when we may expect
1410
the White Paper on Welsh affairs, and when there will be a Debate on it?
Mr. Morrison: I hope it will be quite soon, and there will be no material delay. We are doing our best to fix up a Debate on Welsh affairs this side of Christmas.
Mr. Wyatt: In view of the great public interest which has been aroused by the deplorable state of affairs disclosed by the recent publication of the accounts of the Rank Group, would my right hon. Friend provide time for the discussion of a Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Davenport (Mr. Foot) and myself calling for a review and reorganisation of the industry?
[That this House, in view of the hopeless failure of private business interests organised on a semi-monopolistic basis to cater for one of the most popular pastimes of the British public by building a reputable and expanding British film industry, urges His Majesty's Government to take action designed to overhaul the system of ownership whereby the producing, distributing and exhibiting sides of the industry are bound together under the same monopolistic controls; to liberate the independent producer, the director and the creative technician from the dictatorship exercised by financial interests and distributors; to ensure that distributors who take no risks shall no longer be guaranteed settled incomes from the industry; to ensure that the production side of the industry is no longer burdened by fantastic overhead expenses; and to lay the foundations for a genuine British film industry which can supply a high quota of films for the British screen and thus prevent any increase in the expenditure of dollars on film imports.]
Mr. Morrison: It would be a very interesting matter, but I am afraid I have not got the time. If, of course, it had been a public corporation, it would have been a rather different matter.
Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that the operations of the Overseas Food Corporation are enough to make Mr. Rank green with jealousy?
Mr. Morrison: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure in that situation, because it maintains the competitive principle.
Mr. Henry Usborne: May I ask the Lord President whether he really thinks that one day is adequate for the foreign affairs Debate, in view of the fact that there are many people who will want to discuss the implications of Strasbourg, the implications of the political situation developing in Germany and the international control of atomic energy, all three very important subjects?
Mr. Gallacher: And the moving of a mountain in Russia.
Mr. Paton: Before my right hon. Friend replies to that question, can he say whether, for this very important Debate, he could extend the time, say until midnight, next Thursday?
Mr. Morrison: I note my hon. Friend's point. I am afraid it will be necessary for the House to do the best it can about the matter. This, of course, is not the first or the last of the foreign affairs Debate. With regard to my hon. Friend's point, as he may have noticed from the voices uttered in various parts of the House, they do not all ring in the same note. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] The hon. Gentleman had better let me smell around and find out. I will, however, give attention to the request made by my hon. Friends.
Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the large number of dismissals taking place in B.O.A.C. and losses amounting to nearly £10 million, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this matter will be discussed in the House?
Mr. Mitchison: With regard to such discussion as can be held about Strasbourg in a one-day Debate on foreign affairs, can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be any report provided by the delegates sent to Strasbourg by this House upon which to found that discussion?
Mr. Morrison: That is a nice point as to whether they ought to report to Parliament, which in a way they did represent. On the other hand, the view was taken, I think, by all the delegates and others also, that the persons concerned acted individually. They were responsible as representatives and I do not know that we could hold them accountable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why send them?"] When Members are sent to the House of Commons they are individually responsible for what they say. I am not sure
1412
whether that could be fixed up. The course of the Debate and who is called is, of course, a matter for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, whether it ought to go into HANSARD unchallenged that this House sent "delegates" to Strasbourg?
Mr. Morrison: I did not say so. They were selected in a way that was as representative of Parliamentary opinion as possible. On the other hand, I do not take the view that it would be right to hold them accountable to Parliament, and that, therefore, Parliament could interfere with their judgment on certain matters. They are individually responsible when they go.
Mr. Pickthorn: Further to my point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether these gentlemen should be referred to in this House as "delegates" of the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that they were sent by this House. It is in our knowledge that they went, and they were Members of Parliament, but no vote came through this House to send them there. I think the hon. Member is correct.
Mr. Scollan rose—
Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact—
Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is rising to this same point of Order.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that this House was fully apprised of everything that took place, and could at any moment under its procedure have intervened had there been any disagreement?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that was the point which the hon. Member raised. He really raised the question whether this House had sent these hon. Members there. I think he was right in saying that we did not, though they went, and, naturally, as the right hon. Gentleman says, if any question had been raised it would have been debatable on a Motion in the House.
Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that the Government brought forward a proposal in this House that a delegation

1413
should be sent from this House to Strasbourg and that each of the parties should be represented and appoint their representatives? If that is not appointing delegates, then what is?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. Member would not be able to produce any account in HANSARD to bear that out. It may have been done privately, but it was not official as far as we are concerned, and there was no delegation from this House as such.
Mrs. Middleton: In view of the fact that there are so many voices on all sides of the House ringing in unison on the War Damage (Amendment) Bill, would my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the matter between now and next Thursday to see whether he cannot find time to allow the remaining stages of that Bill to be taken before the end of the Session?
Mr. Morrison: I thought somebody said that this Bill was in another place; it is probably my fault. It is upstairs, and it is taking the ordinary course of a Private Members' Bill. It was unlucky in that it did not get back on to the Floor of the House quickly enough to be dealt with in the time for Private Members' Bills. As to the question whether I can give more time for it, I am sorry, but I cannot.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Leader of the House aware that a question was raised in the Scottish Grand Committee whether that Committee could discuss how the cuts would affect Scotland, and that we were informed that the Scottish Grand Committee could only discuss matters remitted to it by this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to remit such a matter to the Scottish Grand Committee so that we can have a discussion on it?
Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that these matters can only be dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee if remitted to it by this House. I will consider his point, but my inclination is that it would be a wrong principle to do as he suggests.
Mr. Usbome: Referring back to the Business for next week; in view of what has been said, will my right hon. Friend say whether it would not be possible specifically to exclude the Debate on Strasbourg from next week's Foreign Affairs Debate with a view to giving it a separate day later on?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I cannot do that. I am very sorry.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has laid emphasis on the shortage of Parliamentary time, can he say when the House is likely to rise for the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I could not say yet.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Then why have you not got time?

BILLS PRESENTED
  PARLIAMENT SQUARE (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL
  "to authorise certain improvements in and around Parliament Square, and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. Key; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison and Mr. Barnes; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  "to make, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, provision for festival gardens in Battersea Park and further provision as respects river traffic and as respects buildings, structures, works and entertainments; and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. Barnes; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Silkin, Mr. Key and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (ANNUAL REPORT)
3.48 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move,
"That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1948."
This Debate is important, not only because it is concerned with, perhaps, our greatest basic industry, but also because it is the first occasion on which Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the annual report of a nationalised board. Of course, on many occasions in recent months and years we have discussed the progress of the coal industry, and, indeed, argued for a time about the organisation of the National Coal Board. But this is the first time that we have had under consideration the annual report.
I think it is appropriate, therefore, that I should begin by making a few remarks about the constitutional position, that is to say, about the relationship between Parliament and the Minister to the Board, a subject on which there has been a good deal of public comment, and on which, I venture to say, there is still some confusion. The need for discussion on this matter arises, of course, only because the powers of the Minister are limited in relation to the affairs of the Board. Parliament always has the right to call a Minister to account for the way in which he discharges the powers given to him, and, of course, a Minister is therefore accountable to Parliament for the way in which he discharges those powers—in my case, for instance, the powers conferred upon him by the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act—and for anything done by civil servants who act in his name and are subject to his authority.
But in the case of public boards, Parliament has conferred on them by statute, powers and duties for the discharge of which the Minister is not responsible. This was, of course, the case before the war with public corporations like the Central Electricity Board, the London Passenger Transport Board, and the British Broadcasting Corporation. In all those cases, the Minister's powers were limited, and accordingly the relationship of Parliament to the boards. I think we would all agree that power and responsibility must march together. If
1416
the Minister has the power, then he is answerable. If he has not got the power, he cannot reasonably be called to account.
Opinions differ about just how much power the Minister and, therefore, Parliament should have over these boards. There are differences of opinion which I think do not particularly follow party lines here. The argument, of course, for limiting the powers is based primarily upon efficiency. Many take the view that if the Minister interferes too much with the Board the Board will not be able to conduct its business so efficiently. It is emphasised that these boards are trading concerns, that their activities are for that reason particularly unsuitable for ministerial and Parliamentary control. In effect, what the protagonists of that point of view are saying is that Parliament should impose upon itself a self-denying ordnance limiting its power and that of the Minister to intervene because this will give the best results for the nation.
On the other hand, there are those who do not share these apprehensions or, shall we say, attach less importance to the freedom of the boards from interferference on grounds of efficiency, and more importance to the rights of Parliament to exercise control over State enterprises. No doubt, a good case can be made out for both points of view, but it certainly is not possible to hold them both at the same time. One cannot object to powers being, given to the Minister and at the same time require him to accept responsibility.
The nationalisation Acts which have been passed during the present Parliament do not, in fact, follow either of the extreme points of view which I have just mentioned. They limit the Minister's powers pretty severely, though not so severely as they were limited in the case of the pre-war corporations and not so severely as some would like them to be. The conception embodied in these Acts is that the industry concerned should be managed by public boards in the public interest, in accordance with certain principles and directives laid down by Parliament in the relevant Acts. It is for the nationalised boards to comply with these statutory duties and obligations.
The Acts also define the duties and powers of the Minister in relation to these boards. Some powers are specific and some are general. The specific powers in

1417
the case of coal include approval of the general lines on which the Board are to act in regard to capital investment, research, training and education, and the Minister also has certain duties regarding the health and safety of the workers in the industry. On the financial side he has to direct the Board as to the interest and capital charges they have to make, and of course he has to approve the form of the Board's accounts and appoint the auditors. In all these matters no constitutional question arises. It is perfectly clear that the Minister has these powers and is, therefore, answerable for the use he makes of them in exactly the same way as he is for his own Department.
The general powers of the Minister are really embodied, first of all, in his powers of general direction, and secondly, of course, in the fact that he appoints the Board. If the Board in the exercise of their statutory functions were to proceed on lines which the Minister thought were contrary to the national interest, he could give them a direction of a general character. Thus the Minister must accept responsibility for the general lines on which the Board are carrying out their functions. He must accept responsibility for what I should describe as the general success or failure of the enterprise. But he is not responsible for the day-to-day management and administration of the industry by the Board or the operations of the Board in the production and selling of coal or the management of ancillary activities. The actual management and commercial business of the industry has been entrusted to the Board just as similar functions have been entrusted in the past to statutory bodies of one kind or another.
Mr. Lipson: Would it be in order to make representations upon a matter such as the increase in price of coal sent to Denmark, in view of the effect on foreign relations?
Mr. Gaitskell: I was going to deal with that matter later. I should like to add this. It does not necessarily follow that the present position in which the Minister's powers are limited is necessarily the most attractive and easy for the Minister. It is, however, the fact that his powers are limited. Ultimate control, of course, rests with Parliament. If, after consideration of the annual reports of the Board, Parliament consider that the
1418
Board have seriously failed to carry out the duties and functions imposed upon them by Parliament, then clearly they can call the Minister to account on the ground that he had not appointed suitable members to the Board or that he had not issued some general direction. In the last resort they can by legislation alter the powers and functions entrusted to the Board.
It is, of course, open to any individual Member of the House on the occasion of this Debate to make any criticism or constructive suggestion about the general conduct by the Board of their statutory duties, just as it is open to any hon. Member to challenge the Minister on his responsibilities. The great value of a Debate on an annual report is surely that the affairs of the Board can be publicly reviewed by Parliament, just as the board of a company has to account once a year to its shareholders; and the Board have to conduct their business in the knowledge that their management of the industry and their annual report can be publicly debated in Parliament. I have no doubt that all the constructive criticisms and suggestions made by hon. Members will in any case be carefully noted and taken into account by the Board, even if we on our side are not able to reply to everything that is said.
It has been suggested in various quarters that this should be a non-party Debate, that we should, as it were, remember that this afternoon we are attending a shareholders' annual meeting, and that we should make every endeavour to approach the subject of our discussion and the Board's report impartially. The "Financial Times" in its leader of a few days ago had this to say about the matter:
"In debating these nationalised industries, Parliament, though in form and composition the same as for any other business, will be performing an entirely new function. The shareholders of the nationalised industries have disappeared and their ownership has been vested in the nation. Parliament thus becomes the nearest equivalent of the old shareholders' meeting; but it is more than this, for it represents the nation not only as shareholder but also as consumer. The first consequence of this new function is that the debate is, or should be, in no way a party matter. The issue of nationalisation as such is not in question. Members of Parliament should regard themselves as the representatives of their constituents—partly as owners, partly as consumers. And the debate should be free of the Party Whips."

1419
There is much to be said for the point of view expressed in the "Financial Times"; and, for our part, we would have had no objections to a Debate of that kind. We endeavoured to suggest it by putting down a strictly non-controversial Motion. I think I owe it to my hon. Friends to explain that it was for that reason that we put down the Motion in these entirely colourless terms, and I am bound to say that I cannot help regretting that the Opposition should have seen fit to put down an Amendment to this Motion, thereby forcing a Division upon the House and introducing into the Debate a note of party acrimony which will be quite inevitable in the circumstances and which might have been avoided.
Before I turn to the record of the Board, I should like very briefly indeed to deal with some of my own Ministerial functions under the Act. I have, as I have said, financial functions. It is my business as Minister to direct the payment by the Board of their interest and capital charges. These charges are, of course, paid to me in order that I may repay the Treasury for what they have spent. No special point arises on these matters. Details will be found in Appendix VI of the Board's report.
Then I have responsibilities in relation to investment. The Board have kept me continually in touch with their investment reorganisation plans which are set out in Chapters II, III and XI of the report, and I have given my approval under the Act to the general lines of their policy, bearing in mind the general investment policy of the Government, the nature of investment taking place in our fuel and power industries and, I may say, the social consequences of the plans they have in mind.
To this I need only add a word about the recent cuts in investment. Some anxiety has been expressed by hon. Members about the consequences to the coal mining industry, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear in his speech the other day that the cuts as far as coal were concerned would not be serious. We take the view that the need for reorganising and re-equipping the coalmining industry is so urgent that we cannot afford to make serious cuts in that
1420
programme. The cuts, I think, will not amount in all to more than £1 million and are not likely seriously to affect investment there.
Research is another matter on which I have specific duties. The Board has to act on lines settled from time to time, with my approval. I have approved their present programme, which is explained in Chapter VIII of the Board's report, and I would only add that I have done this on the advice of my own Chief Scientist and the Scientific Advisory Council set up some time ago with the duty and obligation of considering the programmes of all fuel and power industries and advising me on gaps or duplication.
Similarly, I have given approval to the Board's proposals for training and education, which are set out in Chapter V of the report.
Finally, on health and safety, I have the duty under Section 42 of securing
"the prosecution of research into methods of advancing the safety and promoting the health"
of employees. Here again, the record of the National Coal Board is set out in Chapter IV of their report and I think it is a very successful record. I have, of course, my own departmental responsibilities in this sphere as well. Without going into the matter in detail, I think it would be right to place on record that in 1948 the figure for fatal accidents was the lowest on record and for serious non-fatal accidents the figure was only just above the record low level of a few years ago. The question of the health of employees is, of course, a matter which under the 1911 Act is of concern to me in my role as Minister.
Here I think the most important matter to which reference should be made is the very serious disease of pneumoconiosis which, of course, particularly affects South Wales, but I think the House can be assured—and will be assured by what they read in the report and what they have heard on other occasions—that that matter is being pursued with great energy. In all divisions dust prevention arrangements are being made, and it is satisfactory to note that the figures of fatalities from this disease have been falling recently. If I say no more about health and safety at this stage it is, of course, not because I do not regard it as of the

1421
greatest importance, but because this is a subject which in any case can be discussed on a Supply Day, because of my own particular dunes and because, as I have said, the National Coal Board are generally acknowledged to have done pretty well in this field.
I turn now to one last individual function of mine of rather a different character, which relates to price policy. The constitutional position here is perfectly clear. The nationalisation Act places upon the Board a duty to make supplies of coal available
"at such prices as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest in all respects."
In other words, under the Act the Minister has no specific powers of price control whatever. The National Coal Board however, continued a voluntary agreement which had been entered into by their predecessors, the former mineowners, with the then Minister of Fuel and Power, not to increase prices without permission.
This voluntary agreement still applies to the home market, but in 1947, when exports were resumed, the Government freed the Coal Board from this agreement on export and bunker prices. This was a deliberate decision of the Government; we considered that it was best and right that the National Coal Board should operate completely freely and commercially in the export market and, in fact, they are free to fix their prices on commercial considerations, in the same way as any other exporter.
I must make it clear that I have complete confidence in the Board's judgment on these matters. There is no doubt that they take fully into account the important aspect of goodwill and they have not taken undue advantage of the rather strong situation in which any seller in the coal export market has stood recently. They have reduced prices where they thought they could sell more, for instance, of some of the poorer qualities of coal, but I must remind the House that the amount of coal which they can export is primarily limited by output. I must also point out that the Coal Board are operating a number of mines at heavy losses, and it is fair that they should attempt to recoup some of those losses. I would also point out that, at any rate as far as domestic consumers are concerned, consumers do not get as much coal as they
1422
want. We have to ration them pretty severely and it is not unreasonable in those circumstances that we should expect a reasonable return from foreign countries.
There has been much talk about the recent increases in the case of Denmark, and one of my hon. Friends has referred to that matter. I want to explain to the House what has happened here. Following an increase in the prices asked for coal by the competitors of the National Coal Board, and in particular Poland, the National Coal Board put up the price of some of the scarcer qualities. The actual increase was, I think, 12½ per cent. on large coal and only 3 per cent. on graded coal. It is, therefore, not a very striking increase, and even after this increase the National Coal Board's prices compare favourably with those of their competitors.
I was a little surprised, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) referred to this matter yesterday. I have not the exact text of what he said, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me could say something about it later. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington seemed to give the impression that the policy of the National Coal Board in this matter was wrong. I cannot agree with him. It does not seem to me that there is any reason, bearing in mind the factors I have considered, why the National Coal Board should not get a reasonable price for coal in the foreign markets. I think we should be making a great mistake if we were to intervene and, indeed, it would be surprising if the Opposition were to tell us to do that in view of the strictures passed upon us in connection with the sterling balances.
There is one other matter in this connection to which I should refer. As the House is aware, and as I mentioned in reply to a supplementary question last week, the O.E.E.C. is considering what is known as the dual price system—that is a difference in price in the home and the foreign markets. I am sure the House will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say very much on this matter at this stage, but I do want to say that our prices at home are lower than our foreign prices, partly because we happen

1423
to control prices at home. We deliberately keep them down, and certainly there would be a very different picture if there was no control of the kind I have indicated.
The second point is that this system of dual prices is by no means confined to coal. It would not be right, I think, for me to go into cases of the products of other countries, but I can say that in at least one other major industry in this country, namely, the steel industry, there is no doubt a similar dual price system. The Opposition, therefore, should be very careful before they criticise too severely a system which may be bringing us considerable benefits.
I now turn to the record of the National Coal Board as set out in the report. It is summarised in Chapter XII and Appendix I, but the figures are well known and I do not intend to spend very long over them. What are the facts? In 1948, deep-mined output was nearly 10½ million tons, or 5½ per cent., above the 1947 level. It was slightly below the very high target set of an increase of 13 million tons, but I think it is worth pointing out that to find a comparable increase from one year to another we have to go back to 1936 and 1937, between which years the labour force in the industry increased by 28,500 as compared with only 8,000 in 1948. It is, therefore, a pretty reasonable record.
Consumption was 192½ million tons and, after taking into account open-cast production and a slight fall in total stocks, the result was to achieve a level of exports and bunkers of 16¼ million tons, which is about three times the level in 1947. The causes of the increased output are perfectly clear. There was an increase in the year of 5,000 face workers, there was a slight improvement in the attendance among face workers and there was an increase in the output per man-shift at the face from 2.86 to 2.92 tons. These figures are in themselves unquestionably encouraging figures. On all reasonable standards they constitute a good performance. There is no doubt, I think, that 1948 was a good year for the National Coal Board and the industry.
Moreover, the financial position of the Board was much improved. A trading loss of £6,000,000 in 1947 was converted into a trading profit of £17,500,000. A
1424
total deficit after meeting capital charges, including revenue payments, of £23 million was converted into a surplus of £1,500,000. Of course, it is perfectly true—and I do not wish in any way to disguise the fact—that this favourable result was largely the result of the higher prices continuing over the full year; and it is also the case that costs as between 1947 and 1948 rose by about 4s. 4d. a ton; but it is also a fact that throughout the year the increase in costs was gradually dropping off, and by the end of 1948 costs had began to fall.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore two less favourable items which have to be brought into any unbiassed survey of the industry. Undoubtedly, increased output was partly due to Saturday working. It is impossible to say just what was achieved in this way. I think myself that the figure of the 7,000,000 tons mentioned in the report is too high a figure, but certainly the increase in production resulted partly from the working of extended hours. This increase, though it affected the increase of output in 1948 over that of 1947, obviously could not lead to an increase in 1949 over 1948. The second feature which was less favourable was, that during the year attendance deteriorated, as the following figures show. The average number of shifts worked per worker in November and December, 1947, was 4.85. It had fallen to 4.74 in the corresponding months of 1948.
The main subject we are considering is the 1948 Report, but I think the House will expect me very briefly to refer to the 1949 position—to what has happened since the Report came out. Precisely because of these less favourable factors I have just mentioned, the estimates we made of the total output for 1949 in the Economic Survey were smaller than many people, perhaps, expected—smaller than we got by way of an increase in 1948. From 202 million to 207 million tons were the figures we put as an estimate of deep-mine output. We put opencast at 13 million tons. On the basis of a consumption of from 198 million to 200 million tons we thought that we might export between 17 million and 20 million tons.
Well, the industry is now going full out to get within those brackets. Whether they succeed or not it is far too early to

1425
say, but, fortunately, consumption has been slightly below the estimate, and it now seems certain we shall achieve the export estimate—as Lord Hyndley mentioned the other day, in all probability, about 19 million tons. Further, as the stocks, over which the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) I think, was rather concerned in July, are now slightly above last year and above the target, I think his anxieties had not much foundation.
The financial position has also, of course, much improved, and in the first six months a clear profit, after capital charges had been met, of £6,500,000 was achieved. I have reason to believe—the figures are not yet available—that this improvement, and also the improvement in lowering costs, has been sustained in the third quarter. The production features are clear enough. There have been substantial rises in output per man-shift, and in output per man-shift at the face; a substantial drop in total manpower; a level of face manpower about the same as that in last year; and a decline in average attendance, although with some improvement in recent weeks.
Before turning to a detailed discussion of some of these trends and their explanation and of what is to be done about them, I wish to deal with one preliminary question, and it is, What output do we need? It may be surprising that I should have to raise that matter at all, but there have recently been statements made in various quarters—the Press and elsewhere—that have suggested that we shall run into great difficulties—that we could not possibly sell coal; that the buyer's market was coming to an end; that there was increasing Polish and German competition; and that the prospect was thoroughly black. I want to dispel that impression altogether.
Lord Hyndley has recently put out a statement which I hope hon. Members will have seen. It is his considered view and the National Coal Board's, that they could sell several million tons of coal more abroad. We have to remember that the United States are still exporting about 10 million tons of coal to Europe, and we must not overlook the fact that the demand at home for domestic coal has by no means been satisfied. Further, in 1951 opencast production will reach its peak and decline. Therefore, after that deep-
1426
mine output has got to be enough to meet any increase in consumption at home and the drop in opencast production, as well as to contribute to any increase in exports.
Those anxieties about the difficulties in selling total output are, therefore, really unjustified. They create in the minds of some in the industry quite needless fears and worries; and I hope that they will in future be dropped. I have no reason to fear that there will be any surplus of coal in the near future, and I have no reason to doubt that, if such a surplus looked like appearing, the National Coal Board and the Ministry between them would be able to deal with it quite easily without any miner having to fear any unemployment whatsoever.
I should like to turn to the three major features which, I think, probably will be looked at by the House as the most important in this picture of production. First of all, manpower. If I depart here a little from the report, it is only because the more recent figures have been giving rise to a good deal of anxiety, and I think the House will expect some comment on them from me. We must first understand that the idea of collecting a lot of men, unskilled and untrained, and dropping them down a pit and expecting them to produce proportionately more coal—or even any coal at all—is quite absurd. Nor have we a position in this industry where we have a lot of unused capacity, unused plant, into which we can put labour down very quickly and then expect to get a very good output. The nature of the mining industry is such that the relations between manpower and output are, I am afraid, far more complicated.
Broadly speaking, changes in total manpower by themselves are not necessarily of any significance to output whatever. Indeed, a reduction of labour, for example, working on screens on the surface, because new plant has been installed, or on underground haulage because more conveyors have been installed, does not necessarily mean the loss of a ton of coal. In itself it is probably highly desirable because it reduces costs. Obviously reductions in the labour force on haulage underground, and so on, could go too far, and labour would have to be withdrawn from the face. It would be that withdrawal which would have serious consequences for output.

1427
Therefore the question arises, What about manpower at the face? This is, of course, much more closely related to output; but even so, some caution is needed. The Coal Board, with the help of the union, have been trying for the last two years to increase the length of the stints. There may well be, for a short period, if they succeed in doing that, a drop in face manpower. Equally, as some of my hon. Friends from the East Midlands know in particular when power loaders are installed at the coal face they tend to reduce face manpower.
Therefore, in a short period the reduction in face manpower is not something necessarily to be deprecated. But the drop in face manpower is certainly a signal of something taking place which calls for investigation. The figures are these. Total manpower increased in 1948 by 8,000, but it had declined by the end of October, 1949, by 17,000. Face manpower increased by 5,000 in 1948. It went up further by about 2,500 in the first part of 1949, but it has since declined, now being at about the same level as it was last year. Now that, I think, illustrates the point I have just been trying to make. The drop in total manpower is not something which is causing me any particular anxiety, nor, I think, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour; but the decline in face manpower, and the failure to increase face manpower, are matters for concern.
Even here it is impossible to generalise with the national figures. The position is quite different in different divisions and, I may say, in different areas in the divisions. For example, taking the Scottish Division as a whole, there is no shortage of manpower. There is an acute shortage of manpower in Fife and there is a surplus of manpower in Lanarkshire. In the Northern Division, equally, there is no shortage of manpower. The West Midlands, on the other hand, need in total another 1,500 men at once. If we looked at the West Midlands in detail, Cannock Chase does not require any extra men, but North Staffordshire could do with another 1,000 straight away. Broadly speaking, there is a requirement for some 5,000 men at once, mostly in Yorkshire and the Midlands. There is no doubt that the fact that labour is not available retards the increase in the face manpower and therefore in output.
1428
Therefore, one comes to the shortage of labour as being a limiting factor which has to be considered. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is, of course, doing all that he can to meet the needs of the National Coal Board, but I want the House to realise what a very difficult problem this is under conditions of full employment. It is not a question of taking any labour. We can only do in the mining industry with men who are physically fit. We do not like to have any men over 35, and we prefer them to be in their 20's. They must be in the right locality. It is no good having young men, even if they are fit, in a different part of the country, and they must be willing to enter the industry. We hope that we may get some extra labour as a result of the investment cuts and the contraction of demand in certain industries.
I think that it is worth making this point: In present circumstances of full employment, if we do get the extra labour in the mining industry, it is going to be at the expense of some other industry. If that other industry is not contributing to anything very important, that is all right, but it may be another industry short of labour which is producing exports for the dollar market. It is a fact that now that coal is no longer a bottle-neck for home production, it is in the same position as many other industries—it is short of labour, it can sell more abroad and wants to sell more abroad: it is a highly-desirable export, but we have to reckon the cost of getting in extra labour.
Another line of approach is the redeployment of labour by transferring from one area to another. That is in many ways the most direct solution of the problem. A great difficulty here is the shortage of houses. If we had plenty of houses available it would be quite easy to move quite a large number of men from areas where there is a surplus to areas where there is a shortage of labour. The problem is being tackled very energetically, particularly in Scotland, where the Coal Board, in conjunction with the Scottish Housing Association, is arranging for the transfer of miners from Lanarkshire to Fife. It may be that something of the same kind can be arranged in England, and we are going into that with the Minister of Health.

1429
We must understand that in this sphere the National Coal Board's responsibility is rather limited. Frankly, I do not know if they can do in this matter very much more than they have done. They are in constant touch with the Ministry of Labour on this problem, and it is not something which is solely their responsibility. We would say this: We hope that they will get the extra labour, but if they can get the extra output in any other way it will be all the better for the country. That, in fact, from what we have seen from recent figures is what is happening at the moment, and we hope it will continue.
Now I turn to the subject of attendance—a subject which in the past has generated a great deal of heat and bitterness both inside and outside the industry and inside and outside the House of Commons. There have been recriminations and counter-recriminations. I suggest that this time we get away from that background. Surely the right approach to this problem is a completely objective one. Here is the problem: So many shifts are lost by miners not coming to work for one reason or another. The first thing is to state what we would regard as a reasonable standard, and then say what can be done to achieve it. Let us remember that in approaching this problem we have little or no evidence of the level of absenteeism in other industries. Many of the miners think they are being singled out because the accident statistics and everything else are known about them, and not everything is known about other people.
Let us remember the rather remarkable fact that the level of absenteeism in the mining industry in this country also exists in practically all the other mining industries on the Continent of Europe. It is obviously a fundamental problem and not something superficial. What are the facts, and what sort of standard should be applied? Absenteeism is usually expressed as the percentage of shifts lost out of the total possible shifts, and on this basis the figures are as follow: In 1938, 6.4 per cent. was the estimated figure and by 1946 it had risen to 16 per cent. In 1947, it was 12.4; in 1948, 11.6 and for the first 42 weeks of 1949, 12.5 compared with 11.5 in the corresponding period of 1948. The difficulty about these percentage figures is that they naturally
1430
include any changes in the number of possible shifts. I can give the House a striking example. During the war, from 1938 to 1943 absenteeism increased from 6½ to 12 per cent., yet the actual shifts worked in the industry rose by 5 per cent. between those two periods. The number of possible shifts had increased enormously. Similarly, when the 5-day week was introduced, the number of possible shifts was reduced, and therefore the absenteeism figures taken alone, as I have read them out, are apt to be misleading.
They are misleading for another reason. They do not distinguish the figures of involuntary absenteeism from those of voluntary absenteeism. This in the case of miners is a matter of fairly considerable importance. The evidence suggests that absenteeism through sickness in 1948 was rather less than 3½ per cent. of the possible shifts. That is not very different from the figures in other industries generally, but where the figures are different is in the loss of shifts through injury in the mining industry there is a much higher figure than in other industries. It is worth noticing that the face worker accident rate—and it is the absenteeism of these workers to which most attention is generally paid—is four times that of surface workers. The figures for recent years distinguish voluntary and involuntary absenteeism. I will read out the voluntary ones, and the House will see from the total figures what the involuntary ones are: Voluntary absenteeism was 7.1 per cent. in 1945, rose to 8.4 in 1946, and has fallen ever since—6.4 in 1947, 6.0 in 1948 and 5.5, so far, in 1949. That is not a particularly alarming record, indeed, I think, looking at these figures alone, we need not feel too badly about it.
Moreover, I think that one has to ask oneself this question: Are we really going to say that there should be no voluntary absenteeism whatever? I think the House will probably agree that I have never countenanced absenteeism; indeed, I have spoken in pretty strong terms about it on a number of occasions; but it is fair to point out when we take these figures that they allow for precisely 10 days'—the statutory holidays and one week of paid holidays—during the year per miner. It would not be surprising—I will put it no higher than that—if in this industry the miners were to take a few

1431
more days off. Having said that, I want to bring it down to this. When we have made some reasonable allowance of that kind, the fact still remains that there is an order of, say, 4 per cent. voluntary absenteeism, which is not justified, amounting to 11 or 12 shifts a year per man. That is the real gap, and that is what we must seek to reduce. It may be said that voluntary absenteeism may include cases where men get medical certificates too easily. Well, it is equally true to say that some voluntary absenteeism covers some cases of sickness. I do not think there is a great deal in that.
Now, what are the causes of this voluntary absenteeism, which, as I have emphasised, exists in other mining industries pretty well everywhere? Some say it is lack of incentives. But the wage system in the mining industry, so far as face workers are concerned, is based very much on incentives; practically all face workers are paid on a piece rate. The five-day week arrangements provide that if a man does his full five days in any week he gets an additional sixth day's pay for the fifth day, but not otherwise, so there is every incentive to go to work for those five days. If he works now under the extended hours agreement, he also gets time and a half for overtime. Therefore, I cannot myself see that there is much scope for increasing the incentive arrangements. However, it is obviously something which we must continually consider, and the Coal Board are continually considering it.
Attention has been drawn before to the fact that during the past year the increase in absenteeism has been entirely in involuntary absenteeism, and some speakers have suggested that it was associated with improved payments for industrial injuries. Well, this is being investigated. It may well be the case, and we must understand that it may well be one of the causes. But I would also say that the House must recognise that in the past, going back a bit to pre-war days, people returned to work pretty soon in spite of injuries, simply because they could not afford to stay away. Now, we must be balanced about this; we must recognise that in dealing with this sort of social problem some abuses might be brought in in the present situation. But I suggest that the way to deal with it is
1432
not to throw the whole of the new system overboard, but rather to retain it and to try to tighten it up to prevent any abuses that may exist. That is the way in which I think we should proceed.
Some people say that P.A.Y.E. is one of the major influences, and I am bound to say that at one stage I thought this might be the case. I asked the National Coal Board if they would provide me with evidence on this subject. I promised that if they provided the evidence I would discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, after some months' effort they were completely unable to provide any hard evidence on the matter. Now, I do not pass judgment one way or the other; I merely give the facts to the House. We have endeavoured to see whether there is any hard evidence, but there is not.
Then there is the argument that the miners have nothing to buy. Well, I never took this seriously myself, and I do not think anybody would advance that argument today. What is much more likely is that leisure is regarded by many miners as more valuable than other things that they could buy with money. In my view, this is largely a question of the standard of living to which the miner considers he is entitled. I would only add this, that I do not believe the problem can be dealt with properly until housing conditions in the mining areas are vastly improved. We cannot expect a man living in some of the really disgraceful conditions under which miners have to live to be very appreciative of improving his living conditions by filling a hovel with a lot of beautiful things. If he had a new house with all the amenities that go with it, the position would be different.
Lastly, I say this. We must not overlook the importance of habit. I have already mentioned that there is absenteeism in mining industries everywhere, and there is no doubt whatever that this is closely connected with the prevalence of short-time working in the pits in the past, and with the fact that in this industry a man was never employed on a weekly basis; he was paid by the shift; he came to work on some days and there was no work and he went away again. Therefore, coal mining has always been regarded—at any rate in many districts—

1433
as, shall I say, semi-casual in character. I remember going with the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) to his area and being told there that quite a number of the workers in the pits regularly took time off to go to sell something or other in Nottingham Market. That is merely an illustration of what I mean. For instance, I am told that in the pottery area it is not in the least uncommon for miners to go and work for a day or two in the potteries. Certainly during the summer they work on the land to some extent.
It is natural that the Opposition should compare the present level of absenteeism with the pre-war level, but the fact is that in times of unemployment and low wages people take all the work they can get in the mines. Of course they do. They cannot afford not to. But in an industry like this, which has been to a certain extent a casual labour industry, when the wages are improved as they have been improved over these years, and when there is also full employment, the miner can be more choosey, and I am afraid that in many ways that is the root of the problem today.
I suggest to the House that we should be unprejudiced about this, that we should be reasonable in our demands, that we should ask the National Coal Board and the unions to press on with every possible measure which can reduce absenteeism, and certainly to consider further incentive arrangements. The tightening up of discipline has, as hon. Members know, proceeded pretty satisfactorily with the full co-operation of the unions, with no strikes or disputes over it. That must go on. Above all, in the mining areas we must build up public opinion and new habits everywhere. There is now guaranteed work, security and full employment, and we must get the men away from the idea that everything is on a shift basis. We must make it clear that high wages and decent conditions depend, above all, on regularity of attendance by all.
That is the responsibility of all in the industry, not the unions only nor the managements only. Sometimes on the management side there is an inclination to sit back and say, "Well, if the men turned up we could get them to work, but if they do not turn up we cannot do anything about it." I think that is a completely wrong method of approach.
1434
It is the colliery managers job—and I have said this to them many times—to deal with the morale of their men and to ensure, as best they can, that they do turn up, although I know it is a very difficult problem, and we wish them the best of luck.
Mr. Gallacher: What about the morale of the managers?
Mr. Gaitskell: I have just been dealing with the morale of the managers.
I now turn to a sphere in which I think we all agree the National Coal Board have been notably successful—the sphere of productivity, or output per manshift. The figures are pretty well known. Output per manshift which was. 1.14 in 1938, had fallen to 1.00 in 1944 and 1945. It then went up to 1.03 in 1946. In the first year of nationalisation, in 1947, it was 1.07, 4 per cent. up; in the second year it was 1.11, another 4 per cent. up; and this year it is, I think, certain to be at least 1.15, and may very well be 1.16. In recent weeks, as the House probably knows, it has been running at 1.20, the highest level reached for a very long time indeed.
If we are passing judgment, as the Opposition have really invited us to do, it is worth seeing what this means. If one looks back at the pre-war years, between 1930 and 1936—which was a good period as far as this particular index goes—the output per manshift rose from 1.08 to 1.18. That was the highest point reached; in other words a rise of about 10 per cent. took six years to achieve, yet it is fairly obvious that in three years the National Coal Board have achieved 4 per cent. per annum and have easily passed the figure which it took private enterprise six years to achieve. That is a measure of their success in this particular field. It will no doubt also be familiar to the House that in comparison with other European countries the figures are very satisfactory. In September, 1949, the figure for the United Kingdom was just above the 1937 figure—1 per cent. above—the index for the United Kingdom being 101. In the British zone of Germany the output per man-shift in the same month compared with 1937 was 67; Poland, 72; the Saar, 80; France, 87; Belgium, 81; and Holland 81, so we have done better, in relation to pre-war figures, than any of those countries.

1435
I do not propose to go into detail about the causes of success—they are set out in Chapters II and III of the Board's report for 1948—but I want to deal with one suggestion. It is sometimes said, "Look at the amount of machinery which the Coal Board have as compared with what the poor mine owners had to make do with before the war." If that were the case, it would constitute something of an argument for nationalisation, but the facts are rather different from what one would suppose. If we take, for instance, the question of cutting machines, there was an increase, between 1945 and 1948, from 71 to 75 per cent. in the amount of coal cut mechanically, which, if my arithmetic is correct, is about 1⅓ per cent. per annum increase.
If we look at this same index, the increase in coal cut mechanically, from 1936 to 1945, was from 55 to 71 per cent.—a rate of nearly 2 per cent. per annum. In other words, the rate at which coal cutting machinery was being installed was greater between 1936 and 1945 than between 1945 and 1948. The reason is simple, of course; we are getting to the stage when it does not pay to introduce face machinery so fast, but it does not suggest that there is much in the story that the Board have achieved their results by pouring more and more machinery into the pits.
It is a similar story about the introduction of conveyors. From 1945 to 1948 there was an increase in coal conveyed mechanically from 70 to 77 per cent.—an increase of about 2⅓ per cent. per annum. The figures for 1936 to 1945 show an increase from 48 to 70 per cent.—an increase of about 2½ per cent. per annum. The fact remains that whereas from 1936 to 1945, with all that machinery and those conveyors introduced into the pits, output per manshift, overall, declined from 1.18 to 1.00. Since 1945 it has, of course, as I have already explained, gone up from 1.00 to 1.11. So, it is not fair criticism of the Board to say that they have had advantages which others have not had.
I would like to say a few words about the Board's organisation. A year ago there was a great deal of talk about the organisation and the structure of the Board. As it was dealt with fully in the Debates at the time, I do not propose to
1436
say very much, but I should like to say this: I have never believed that the nature of the Board's set-up and the possible changes which might be made in it was as important as some believed. The Board themselves have never claimed that the set-up was immutable; they have always made it plain that they would be ready to change if experience required it, and I believe there was a danger of emphasis on structure tending to cloak the need for attention to some fundamental problems. I believe that the one essential in this field of organisation is not to be rigid or doctrinaire. I am sure that most of us understand that whether organisation works well or not depends far more on personalities and personal relationships than anything else.
It is, however, difficult to put in black and white exactly what the relationship should be in the organisation. I have no doubt that when the divisional boards were set up they probably did not work well together; most of them were composed of people who did not know each other very well; they came from different sides of industry, with very different backgrounds. But from my experience from going around the coalfields, as I do quite often, I should say that they were working far more now as a team than they did in the early days, as we would expect. Proposals have been put forward to abolish the divisional boards and set up 23 area boards, but I believe they are based more on emotion than on reason. I think it is hardly a coincidence that the main criticism put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde and, to some extent, his supporters, was against outsiders being brought in as divisional chairmen.
Colonel Lancaster indicated dissent.
Mr. Gaitskell: There is no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member was very critical on that point, as were his Front Bench leaders. The suggestion was that there should be 23 areas, and it was combined with an attack on the divisional boards and, in particular, on the chairman of the boards. The hon. and gallant Member had it in the back of his mind, perhaps it was a subconscious feeling, that we ought to get back to the old areas of the Mining Association—the Employers' Association—to put the employers in

1437
charge and so get the best organisation. I am sure that that would be a very silly way of dealing with the problem. We have to understand that disturbance in itself—and perhaps this will appeal to the Opposition—can sometimes do more harm than good. When a new organisation is set up—and in this particular case that organisation was desperately needed—it may be quite a good thing to let it run without trying to disturb it.
The question of structure is dealt with fully in Chapter X of the Board's report. In my opinion, the Board make out their case most convincingly on this matter. They point out the difficulties of substituting 23 areas for the divisional boards, which, I think, are overwhelming. In view of this I think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington yesterday announced once more the Conservative Party's intention, if returned to power, to alter the structure of the Coal Board. I will read what he said, as quoted by the "Financial Times":
"We have no intention of de-nationalising the industry. We could not go back on it even if we would, but we do think that reorganisation, decentralisation, by which pit managers, for instance, would be more and more personally responsible and divested of the mass of administrative work with which they are now bedevilled, would go a long way towards putting the industry back on its feet."
I cannot help wondering what the right hon. Gentleman really knows about what pit managers are thinking. Who briefed him on this subject? He cannot have had much time to go down many pits, or examine the vast mass of administrative work with which pit managers are, so he says, overwhelmed. There is too much vague generalisation, quite unsupported by evidence. I do not think there is any evidence of this kind whatever. Perhaps it is Sir Charles Reid who advises the Conservative Party. If they are really thinking of taking his advice—he is a distinguished engineer—I would put this to them: he has a certain view on the correct organisation of the industry, and he is entitled to that view, but he did not carry his eight colleagues with him. Although he is a distinguished engineer he is not, if I may say so, particularly expert in business organisation.
I suggest to the Opposition, therefore, that they would be making a great mistake if they tied themselves down to a particular plan for re-organising the
1438
industry without consulting either those who run it, or the union, and rely, instead, on those who were at one time connected with the industry. It seems to me they would be making a great mistake to do anything of the kind.
Colonel Lancaster: I should like to correct one thing at this stage. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed a good many remarks to me and I hope he will not mind me putting in this one? As far as Sir Charles Reid's recommendations are concerned, I produced mine before Sir Charles's report was issued. I hope that the Minister will not go away with the idea that the Conservative Party are being advised by Sir Charles Reid, although we pay very careful attention to what Sir Charles Reid says in this matter.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. It is evident, therefore, that they must have obtained advice and assistance from someone less closely and recently connected with the industry than Sir Charles Reid, and I suggest to them that if they are taking this line—
Mr. Henderson Stewart rose—
Mr. Gaitskell: I have been on my feet far too long. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt get his opportunity to speak.
Mr. Stewart: But will the Minister—
Mr. Gaitskell: I will interrupt the hon. Member when he makes his speech.
We can only hope that like other parts of the Opposition's programme, this policy can be thrown overboard if circumstances require it, and that in this matter, as in the matter of taxation and of the social services, the Conservative Party will hold themselves entirely free to review the position if granted the opportunity. I am sure they will not misunderstand me if I say that while some of us here and some of the public outside want something rather more than a rather evasive attitude on matters like the social services and taxation, we would give them carte blanche to hold themselves completely free to do what they like about the organisation of the coal mining industry. It would be very much wiser than tying themselves up in this extraordinary way.

1439
I repeat that the present structure does not mean that all change is opposed. It is quite obvious from experience of large-scale business that change is needed over a period of years, and the same thing happens in the National Coal Board setup. What I do say is that it would be a great mistake for any party or Government to impose from outside a new structure on the coal mining industry without consulting those in the industry about it. The National Coal Board is a rather different problem, because the Minister has responsibility for appointing it. My general views on the character of the Board have been frequently expressed in the past. I have now appointed five part-time members who will add considerable strength to the Board. I am sure it will be of assistance to the Board to have at their deliberations the benefit of those persons with outside experience and with contact with the world, and I do not think that that divides the two parties.
I should like to say a word or two about the members of the Board. They have been much criticised often unfairly and stupidly. They have had great difficulties to face, but they have worked extremely hard to overcome them. Lord Hyndley, the chairman, is less concerned with himself and his own interests than any man I have ever known. He is devoted wholly to the public service, he has worked extremely hard, rather too hard for his own health, and all his experience and mature judgment is at the disposal of the industry. There is no doubt whatever that he has won, in an outstanding manner, the confidence of all in the industry, and he is universally respected. I want to thank him for all that he has done in helping the National Coal Board during probably its most difficult period. Sir Arthur Street is known to many in the House, and he was in the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). He is of the highest intelligence and energy. He never seeks the limelight, but works away steadily in the background. Fundamentally, he is a very idealistic man but if I may say so, he is also very practical in handling problems. There is no doubt at all that his experience of large-scale administration has been quite invaluable to the Board.
1440
I have covered a fairly wide field, but I have had to leave out a good deal. I have tried to be reasonably impartial, as I hope that relationship between Parliament and the Board will be all the better for objective criticism and defence. I have made no attempt to disguise the less satisfactory features of the position. I have dilated upon absenteeism and our anxieties about manpower. I have not hesitated to mention the more encouraging developments as well. After all, constant lecturing and nagging of the industry is not always the best thing. In my view, this report shows that the National Coal Board has successfully overcome its teething problems. There have been disappointments as well as successes, but the fact remains that output and exports continue to increase, and productivity has gone up steadily in the last few months. Costs have been held and are tending to fall, and the financial position is tending to improve.
The industry does not depend wholly upon the men at the top. They are entitled to and must receive the best possible leadership, but it is on the thousands of men at all levels and, above all, the miners themselves, that we must depend. It would be fitting as Members of Parliament if we joined with the Board in expressing thanks to the men in the industry. May we, in the words of the Board, say: "To the men in pit, workshop, laboratory, office, training centre, industrial plant and farm, to the men and women of the industry wherever they may be, who have done their best to serve, we express our thanks and our wishes for success in the years of endeavour and trial which lie ahead." In this spirit I commend the report to the House.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman commence his long statement with some very wise words and advice about the way in which this report should be treated. We are today, as he said, engaged for the first time in discussing a report of one of the nationalised industries. To that extent we are setting up a precedent. It is not exactly the same, as the right hon. Gentleman so well said, as an ordinary Supply day, because we are not engaged necessarily in criticising his administration in detail. It

1441
is our job to take a broad view of the whole of the administration of this Board.
One of the fundamentals, which the Minister did not mention, as to why it is essential to have a Debate of this kind is because these nationalised industries have, in fact, become monopolies. It was essential that the people of this country should be able to bring any complaints they may have about the way in which the Board is conducting its business and any criticisms of monopolistic tendencies which they may see to the attention of Members of this House. We on this side appreciate the action of the Government in making two or three days available for the discussion of these various reports.
The only thing I would say about it is that the Board's second annual report was issued six months after the end of the year to which it refers. That is certainly an improvement on the seven and a half months of last year. Nevertheless we are now discussing this report 10 or 11 months after the end of the year details of which are set forth in the report. The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman had to pray for the tolerance of the Chair in talking of the happenings of this year proves that in future these Debates ought to take place and the report ought to be issued much closer to the end of the year to which it refers.
As far as the form of the report is concerned, the House is indebted to the Board for the very full statement it has made and for the account it has published. That does not mean that, this being the first occasion of a discussion of this sort, there may not arise in the future a need to set up some sort of machinery analogous to the Public Accounts Committee to assist Members in Debates of this kind, by scrutinising expenditure and receipts in greater detail than we can do in the ordinary way. I do not say that it will be necessary, but I put in the caveat that this may well be one of the developments that will be necessary. Before I go on to what some hon. Members may think the more controversial parts of my speech, I echo what the Minister said, and what was greeted on all sides of the House with satisfaction, about the record of the Board in reducing fatalities in the mines to the lowest on record. If for nothing else than that, they are entitled to great credit.
1442
Having said that, I am bound to say that, taking the Board's report as a whole, and, I am sorry to say, taking the speech to which we have just listened from the Minister, they exhibit the most appalling complacency over the situation in which the country and the coal industry find themselves today that it is possible to imagine. [Interruption.] Just wait, and listen. What does it set out as the first object of the Board? It says that the object of the Board is:
"To produce more coal, to improve its quality and to curb costs."
"Curb"—I ask you! The Board's object ought surely to be to reduce costs. The whole of the Report is devoted to showing why the Board has not been able to carry out that primary object. The next sentence of the Report says:
"Over the years, the Board's main task is the reconstruction of the industry."
Reconstruction for what, I should like to know? It is pretty clear that the Board has not set itself any particular target.
Let us take production, which is the first item dealt with in the report. What has been the record of production in 1948? First, there was the deliberate setting up of a miserably inadequate target, many millions of tons below what the T.U.C. themselves thought possible two years previously. The industry, under the so-called leadership of the Board, did not attain that target. The Minister of Labour said that the output was only—only, if you please—three million tons short. In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman has made no apology for the failure of the industry to attain their miserably low target.
Lord Hyndley, about whose moral character the Minister made certain remarks, said in the middle of the year under review, that the industry would have to answer to their conscience if they failed to reach that target. The Parliamentary Secretary also said in the middle of the year that the target was the absolute minimum that should be reached. There is nothing in the report to show how Lord Hyndley and the industry salved their consciences, yet the target was well within the capacity of the industry. It is well that the House, the mining Members particularly, and the public outside should bear in mind always the comparison with

1443
1941, when under private enterprise the industry got 10 million more tons than in 1948, with some 26,000 fewer people.
Mr. Gaitskell: What about 1944?
Mr. Hudson: I am talking about 1941, when many of the most able-bodied men in the industry had been withdrawn—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and yet the industry achieved substantially higher figures.
The other failure of the Board is in regard to prices. Pit-head prices have gone up during the two years in question from an average of 30s. to an average of 47s. 3d. per ton. The interesting thing, to which we should devote our attention, is why the failure has come about. Why has the industry failed to reach its target and why has the Board failed not only to decrease prices but even substantially to curb them? We believe that it is primarily due to the whole set-up of the Board. We believe that the organisation of the Board is fundamentally wrong.
I am not going to delay the House by going through all the reasons why I think the special pleadings in the report are without foundation. I will leave that to be done by one of my hon. Friends behind me. What is interesting in the report, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is that the alternative methods of organisation which have been put forward happen to be the same although they were put forward by two separate individuals starting from entirely different premises. In the case of Sir Charles Reid, he was talking purely from a technical point of view. In the case of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), he was talking from the purely administrative point of view, and yet their experience in both fields brought them to the same conclusion. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that their conclusions are as sound as the view taken by Sir Arthur Street.
The Minister will remember that a little earlier, great play was made by the Board with the fact that they had set up an inquiry, the so-called Burrows Committee. That was not an independent inquiry which could be trusted to take evidence and to reach an independent conclusion. It was—I will not call it a gerrymandered inquiry—it was an inquiry set up under a member of the Board with
1444
two outside assessors. Whatever the object of the inquiry may have been, the fact remains that this House and the country have never been given to this day a full report but only a bowdlerised version. We do not know what the report contained or what evidence was submitted.
The other great cause of disappointing results, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is the failure on the part of the Board to establish better relations inside the industry, certainly between the Board and its employees and between the Board and the managements. In the case of the managements, it is an open secret that frustration is widespread.
Mr. Gaitskell: Nonsense.
Mr. Hudson: In the case of the men themselves hon. Members have only to look at the report from their own body, the Trades Union Congress. They will find it on page 218, at the paragraph which says:
"The goodwill expressed towards the Board in the early days has now been replaced by cynicism."
On both counts there is failure. The Board's Report is full of instances of the results of these failures. I do not wish unduly to delay the House, but if any hon. Members have any doubt about the matter they might turn to page 3, paragraph 12, of the Board's report. It is there shown that one of the first steps that the Board took in order to try to improve production was the re-assessment of tasks. What is the Board's comment on the progress which has been made? It says:
"The process of 're-assessing' tasks went on throughout 1948, but far too slowly."
The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of that.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that comment is complacent?
Mr. Hudson: The Minister will see that it is complacent as we go on. The paragraph continues:
"In some divisions, the management has little or no difficulty in obtaining the men's agreement to working bigger tasks. In others, they made progress with difficulty; in many collieries, even in whole districts—they met with no success at all."
The Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see in his place, made a speech

1445
on Sunday last at Preston. He is reported in two newspapers to have said:
"Our principle of life must be that those who want more than a minimum standard of life—a fine and praiseworthy ambition—must contribute more than a minimum day's effort in the way of work."
I hope that is an accurate account of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not want to be unfair to him. I noticed with interest but not with surprise that that particular sentence was left out of the account given of his speech by the "Daily Herald." It was not regarded as a piece of news that would please its readers. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not think me rude for asking it, whether he was really sincere or not. Does he really believe what he said in that sentence or was it merely an attempt to curry favour with the middle classes or possibly to restore some of his influence with some of the bigger trade unions? Is he sincere?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not know what reply the right hon. Gentleman expects. If I said a thing and I said it after consideration, I meant it. If I may say so, it is not quite the thing for one right hon. Gentleman to ask another, "Were you sincere in saying that?" If I said it, I was obviously sincere.
Mr. Hudson: I should be the last person to wish to be unnecessarily controversial with the right hon. Gentleman. However, I wanted to get him on record as saying that that was what he really meant, because it has a certain relevance to the industry which we are discussing. What I particularly wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman, following on his admission, was whether he would see any objection to asking his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to advise the Board to apply what he said to the circumstances described in paragraphs 52 and 53 on page 11 of the annual report. I will read what it says of the North Eastern Division:
"Output per manshift is higher than in most of the coalfields but … well below the national average. The comparatively small increase in output per manshift in the Division as a whole reflects the slow progress made in re-assessing tasks. The feeling among many of the face-workers that little or no increase in daily effort could reasonably be expected from them, which came to a head in 1947 in the Grimethorpe dispute, remains."
1446
Remember the losses caused by the Grimethorpe dispute. Apparently that dispute has even now not been settled. Tasks have not been re-assessed, although in the opinion of independent people there was good ground for re-assessment. All I am asking is that the right hon. Gentleman should apply the doctrine announced by the Lord President of the Council to the conditions in the North Eastern Region.
The final example of the failure of the Board to achieve any substantial improvement in its relations with the industry with a view to getting what it wants done, the re-assessment of tasks, which is one of the primary necessities for increasing production, is found in paragraph 71 on page 14 of the report. The paragraph is headed, "Preparing for 1949." It states that the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers set up a committee to see what they could do to improve the prospects. The paragraph goes on:
"They pointed to the need for the speeding up of 're-assessment of tasks' as the Five-day Week Agreement had provided, and they said that something would have to be done to improve the results from the working of extended hours."
That was in 1948, with a view to improving matters in 1949. The last sentence in paragraph 73 reads:
"At the end of the year discussions about local arrangements for improving attendance were still going on between the Board and the Union."
Yet we know, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the figures for attendance in 1949 are worse than they were in 1948. In 1948 the figures for faceworkers were 13.6, rising in the first six months of 1949 to 15.13. The overall figures were 11.02 in 1948 and in the first six months of 1949 12.57. That does not look as if the Board's efforts were singularly successful in achieving the co-operation of the National Union of Mineworkers, which it wants.
If we turn to management we find very much the same story. There is an unnecessary amount of frustration throughout the management and, worst of all, so I am told on good authority, there is a growing feeling of distrust inside the ranks of the management. There is a growing reluctance to talk openly, a phenomenon which, I am told, never occurred before under private enterprise.

1447
[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen want proof of that, they can see it in the steady drift away from the industry of valued technicians. People do not give up jobs in which they have spent their lives, knowing that they cannot get employment in another part of the same industry, without pretty good cause.
If I had time I could give the House instance after instance of the way in which the managements have been treated by the Board. I have an example dealing with one regulation alone, the retirement regulation. There was a man who would have been entitled to compensation at the end of his service of 10 years. He was dismissed by the Board one month short of 10 years, and up to now the Board has refused to give him any compensation on the ground that he had not covered the full period of 10 years in its service. Just think! Suppose a private individual had done a thing like that. What a howl would have come from hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Pryde: That is a very poor story.
Mr. Alpass: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the reason for the man's dismissal?
Mr. Hudson: Whatever the reason for his dismissal, a Board which desired to have really good relations with the industry would have waived the one month after nine years and 11 months of good service. There have been cases where the Board has deliberately reduced men's salaries, not because of any inefficiency on their part, but merely because it said that the salaries of those men were out of line with the salaries being paid to other members of their profession at that level. The attempt is always to bring everyone down instead of carrying out the doctrine which the Leader of the House enunciated, that when men did well they ought to get increased rewards.
I now turn to relations with industry. These leave a good deal to be desired. Dealing with the National Coal Board often gives industry a sense of grievance. It is continually being pinpricked. For example, there was the recent change in the method of obtaining payment. This has resulted in a reduction of the credit
1448
which has hitherto been extended to suppliers. Many have also found difficulty in getting paid by the Board. We suggest that more attention ought to be paid by the Board today to the old idea that the consumer was always right. Instead of there being a wide choice of supplier as there was in the old days, the choice today is dictated by what the Board is pleased to call "the rational consumer" ought to want. It is not very nice, instead of having a free choice and being able to move from a man who does not give satisfaction to another man, to be told that if one wants to change now one is not "a rational consumer."
Mr. Ronald Williams: Does this argument mean that the right hon. Gentleman desires us to consider the de-nationalisation of the mines?
Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member evidently did not listen to the extract from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) at lunch time yesterday. It does not mean the de-nationalisation of the mines. It means the setting up of an organisation which would improve the present state of affairs. Nor is the domestic consumer today satisfied with the Board. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, one of the Board's officers, stated the other day that—
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman ought to get his facts right. Lord Balfour of Burleigh is not one of the Board's officers.
Mr. Hudson: I beg his pardon. At any rate, the fact is that the Balfour to whom I refer describes the domestic consumers' ration today as wholly inadequate. I believe that most domestic consumers would agree with that, and that they are not very pleased with the prices they have to pay, which have gone up threefold since the war. It is not only private enterprise that is displeased, but even the socialised industries. The first report of the Transport Commission said:
"As to the bill for fuel and power, the most important item is coal. The cost of coal per ton reached an increase of about 175 per cent. over pre-war levels; that is without making any allowance for poorer quality, unsuitable sizes and inconvenient delivery. The cost to British Railways for steam locomotive running alone, in 1948, was about £36 million, and further increases have taken place in 1949."

1449
The House will observe that in the case of the men and the management of the industry, and in the case of other socialised industries, there is a lamentable lack of good feeling between them and the Board.
For further proof of what I have said, I suggest that Members look at the number of strikes. I am quoting the figures given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. For the year, 1948, there were 1,759 stoppages in the whole of British industry, and of these no fewer than 1,116 occurred in the first industry to be nationalised. The next highest number is in the case of transport. And so, 1,200 out of the 1,700 stoppages that occurred in 1948 were in nationalised industries, which hardly speaks well for the relationship between the Board and the men.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give the figures before nationalisation took place, particularly the figures for the corresponding period after the 1914–18 war?
Mr. Hudson: It is really tragic the way Members opposite continually try to produce alibis from some other period. I said that the relationship between the Board and its employees was not of the best in 1948, which is the year we are discussing. In proof of that, I pointed out that 1,200 out of the 1,700 strikes which took place occurred in this industry, and from that I am entitled to adduce that the relationship in the coal industry between employers and men is worse than in the industries that have not been nationalised.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will admit that these figures are totally meaningless unless he compares them with the corresponding figures before the Coal Board took over; otherwise we cannot judge what they mean?
Mr. Hudson: I am comparing the relationship in the industry during the past year, to which this report refers, with that in private industry, which is a logical comparison.
Let me turn now to the output per man-shift. Here again the right hon. Gentleman was singularly complacent. The right hon. Gentleman, the Coal Board and the Government generally, as well as
1450
Members opposite, are always talking about the output per man-shift. It is certainly a source of gratification that the output per man-shift is rising, but what we are concerned with as a nation, and what the Coal Board ought to be concerned with, is not only the output per man-shift, but the output per man-year. The right hon. Gentleman does not putout targets for so many million tons per man-shift, but fixes his targets for so many million tons per year and so many million tons for the export trade.
The only test, as far as the country is concerned, is how much each miner produces on an average per year, and I wish to point out that the average output per miner per year, instead of being an increase, is 10 per cent. below what it was in a comparable pre-war period, when the industry was in the hands of private enterprise. That is a significant fact to which the attention of the country ought to be called. The right hon. Gentleman never quotes the output per man-year. If we look at the Government's statistics and at the speeches made by Ministers, we never find references made to the output per man-year. One passing reference only is made, in the Board's report, while in only one Government publication is the figure given, and that is in the yearly report of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. It is clear that there is some reason for this, and I suggest it is that the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Government are anxious to conceal the facts and try to make the country believe, in talking about the increase in output per man-shift, that we have turned the corner.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that output per man-year is simply the result of taking together the output per man-shift and the number of shifts worked in a year? I dealt very fully with the number of shifts worked in the year. No one, of course, disputes that absenteeism is higher now than it was before the war, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite unjust in saying that we do not admit these things; we do, and I dealt with the matter at length.
Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman may admit it, but he does not disclose what are the results. It is as well to remember, in talking about output per man-shift, that this coincides with an enormous increase in mechanisation. The

1451
Coal Board takes pride, in paragraph after paragraph of its report, for how much it has done in mechanisation, by installing conveyors and so forth. It boasts that it spent £25 million on improvements in 1948. The right hon. Gentleman used the most astonishing argument in dealing with this point. He claimed that the average increase in the percentage of mechanisation was higher in 1938 to 1945 than it was between 1945 and 1948. That is a most extraordinary claim to make, and it disposes pretty effectively of the assertions made so often by hon. Members opposite about lack of enterprise by private owners in installing mechanisation. It also shows—we cannot believe it is true—that the Coal Board is being singularly inefficient, when it has all the resources of the Ministry of Supply behind it, that it cannot keep up the percentage of mechanisation private enterprise achieved before the war.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am really surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. Surely the fact that, despite this higher rate of mechanisation, the output per man-shift fell by 18 per cent., from 1.18 to 1.0, in 1936 to 1945, is the greatest indictment he could possibly have of private enterprise.
Mr. Hudson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that interruption, because he obviously does not know, or chooses to forget, that there were injected into the industry during those most critical years the Bevin boys, which completely accounts for any fall there may have been.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has done a great disservice to the industry today in trying to gloss over the increased absenteeism. It is true that he condemned it in mild terms compared with the speeches he sometimes makes in the country. He has made a number of excuses which compare badly with the animadversions contained in numerous pages in the report of the Board. I do the Board the credit of calling repeated attention to the failure to re-assess the tasks and the failure to give the effort that is required by the national interest today. My criticism of the Board is that, having said that, it does no more and carries on without having achieved
1452
any successful method of securing material improvement. Indeed, as I pointed out earlier, the record of absenteeism is actually worse this year than it was in the year we are discussing.
The Minister said something about the English standard not being dissimilar from that of overseas countries. He talked about absence due to injury being higher than it was in other industries, but he went out of his way to claim, quite rightly, that under the administration of the Board welfare and health services had improved and that there was a lower rate of injury. That should have been followed by a lower rate of absenteeism. There was a higher rate of injury in the days before the war and yet absenteeism was lower. Therefore, that excuse cannot hold water.
Now I turn to exports, and I am glad to see that at least in this instance the Board has been successful in achieving its target. It is largely due, of course, to the happy circumstance, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, that we had a hot summer and a mild winter and, therefore, stocks had been accumulated.
Mr. Grey: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hudson: No, I did not interrupt once, and I do not see why I should give way. Although it is gratifying to see that it has reached the target of 19 million tons, the country had better remember that this target, about which so much song and dance is being made, compares with a normal export pre-war of 46 million tons. If we achieved that target, or something like it, not only would our balance of payments be better and our cost of living probably lower but, as the Foreign Secretary said in a recent speech, if he had 40 million tons of export coal he would have three times the influence in Europe which this country enjoys today.
One word about what we conceive to be the duty of the Coal Board and the duty of the industry. I believe that the duty of the coal industry is to provide coal in quantity and quality adequate to meet all requirements of the domestic and export market. I believe that its duty also is to do so at prices which would enable us to produce a healthy

1453
economy at home and to sell not only our coal but our manufactured goods abroad at competitive prices. I believe that unless the industry does that, our cost of living will go up and unemployment will rise. That is admitted by the Board in more than one passage in the report.
I believe that the nation at present requires a greater technical efficiency in the coal industry than in any other single industry in the country, because all our industries depend, in the last resort, on the cost of fuel. A quick and drastic reduction in the price of coal would do more than any other single thing to get us out of our present difficulties and restore our prosperity and our power of entering foreign markets. Not only would it enable us to enter foreign markets, but it would also contribute materially to reducing the cost of living at home. That is recognised by the Board in paragraph 355, which says that the present high costs of coal production contain a double threat—to the standard of living of all the people and to the security of employment and the earnings in the coal industry itself. I believe that statement would meet with approval on all sides of the House.
My complaint about the Board is that it pays lip-service to that but shows no signs, in the report at all events, of realising how to achieve that desirable end. Sir Charles Reid calculated that by the expenditure of £300 million by 1965 the price of coal at present wage levels could be reduced by 5s. a ton. Let the House and the country remember that 5s. a ton is only half the increase that has taken place since coal was nationalised. In other words, a reduction of 10s. a ton in coal today would still leave coal dearer than it was at the end of the war, while a reduction of £1 a ton would still leave coal 65 per cent. dearer than it was prewar. I give those two figures, which have been quoted by Sir Herbert Houldsworth at a summer school, to show the size of the problem that the coal industry and the country are up against. There is nothing in the report to show that the Board realises it or that it has made the industry realise it.
Mr. Mellish: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?
Mr. Hudson: No. It is well to remember, when talking about price, that the profit was achieved this year only as a result of increasing the prices overseas up to £1 or more a ton. Hon. Members may say that it is a good thing to make the foreigner pay more than the Englishman, and here the right hon. Gentleman may quote other cases of dual prices, but believe me, it is not the best thing for international friendship and international relations, and it is seen in the case of Denmark. We have only to look at the criticism which is being levelled against England as a result of raising our export prices. If they had been raised by private individuals, there would have been complaints, but it would not have affected international relations. It is being widely believed in Denmark, rightly or wrongly, that we were guilty of sharp practices in putting up the prices. That is one of the results of having monopolies in overseas trade.
Let me sum up by quoting the words used on this problem in "Let us Face the Future"—
"… public ownership will bring great economies in operation and make it possible to modernise production methods and to raise safety standards in every colliery in the country. Public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings will lower charges, prevent competitive waste … and lead to the reforming of uneconomic areas of distribution."
The final sentence is:
"Other industries will benefit."
What a hope! [An HON. MEMBER: "Give them time."] The position is that after three years of the Board's work the domestic consumer is dissatisfied with the price he has to pay, industrial consumers are dissatisfied, and even the other nationalised industries are dissatisfied. The price of coal, which was already high before the Board took over, was increased by 4s. in September, 1947, and by a further 2s. 6d. a ton in 1948. As a result, British consumers in that period have paid an additional £113 million sterling for their fuel.
In the matter of staff, although we were told the result of amalgamation would be economies, administrative and non-industrial staff in the nationalised industry has increased from 30,000 at the end of 1947 to 36,000 at the end of 1948. Administrative and non-industrial staffs

1455
have increased by 21 per cent., but wage earners have gone up by only 5 per cent. Administrative expenses in collieries have risen in the same period from 6.7 pence to 10.4 pence a ton. What has happened to the administrative savings which we were promised in "Let us Face the Future"? Finally, wastage has again started to exceed intake, and that is not the sign of a highly contented industry.
The most unkind comment of all comes from the Government's own paper, "The Bulletin for Industry," issued by the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Month after month—hon. Members can consult previous editions in the Library—and particularly in the issue I have with me, for October, coal is held up as the one industry where the production increase is well below the average of other industries—and this the result of two years of the Board. Therefore, despite the fact that the Board may have made some small progress in various fields, I have no hesitation whatever in claiming that on the whole it has failed to bring to the country the advantages which nationalisation claimed.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Williams: I must confess that I have a certain amount of sympathy with the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) because, quite obviously, he was labouring under a double disadvantage: firstly, that he had to make out some sort of a case in spite of the fact that his better judgment must have informed him that the National Coal Board had made a magnificent job of things; and, secondly, because somehow or other he had to try to persuade the House that comparisons should be made between the state of affairs in the industry today and the state of affairs in the days when it was under private enterprise. Thereby he was in the difficulty that while he has some slight authority for saying that there was now some cynicism, and while he held on to that point like grim death, he had to bear in mind that we all knew, and that the miners in this House knew—when I say "the miners in this House" I pause to comment upon the fact that they will be found, of course, only on one side of the House; miners in this House knew well that in the years
1456
of which the right hon. Member was speaking there was not cynicism, but inexpressible contempt, in the mining community for the party with which the right hon. Gentleman is associated and for the owners who degraded the workers and miners for so many years. In the face of those disadvantages, the right hon. Member did rather well to make a speech at all.
There was a significant omission from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, he was leading for the Opposition in the Debate on the report of the National Coal Board. He went far beyond Chapter IV, but he said not a word about Chapter IV. He said nothing about the safety, health and welfare—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he did."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not become excited. Let me, therefore, become a little more specific. One of the principal points of Chapter IV deals with pneumoconiosis, and perhaps there will be silence on the benches opposite when I say that the right hon. Member did not refer to that or to dust suppression. As far as this great subject is concerned, the Board are doing more in respect of pneumoconiosis than has ever before been done in the history of the industry. Is it not rather remarkable that there should be complete silence from the benches opposite on this fact, which happened to be one of those upon which the right hon. Member could not have made an adverse comment?
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member is being grossly unfair. As it was, my speech took too long. The Minister took over an hour, but I did not want to take as long. The report is a large volume and I could have gone on speaking two or three hours. I did congratulate the Board at the beginning of my speech on the reduction of fatalities and later I commented favourably on the services they had rendered in reducing illness and injury. No one is more conscious of what they are doing than we are, but I could not mention everything. Incidentally, the point which the hon. Member is making, makes absolute nonsense of what his leader the Minister said about absenteeism.
Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says that I make nonsense of what my right hon. Friend has said regarding

1457
absenteeism. The suggestion which the right hon. Member is making is that because there is now less illness and injury there should be less absenteeism. I will accept that sort of observation from my right hon. Friend, but not from hon. Members opposite. There are certain criticisms which they are very ill-qualified to make, and that is one of them. When I see hon. Members opposite and their associates, it sometimes occurs to me that if I had greater powers of imagination perhaps I could think of them and the members of their clubs rushing to the nearest employment exchange to try to make their contribution to a solution of the recruitment problem of the mines, but that is too much for the resources of my imagination.
It seems to me that the criticisms from the benches opposite are founded largely on political prejudice. Hon. Members opposite hang on to their attitude concerning the output per man-year, and they try to explain away the fact that as far as the Board is concerned it has at least arrived at the point where production is now running at 20 million tons a year more than in 1946. That is an inescapable fact, and hon. Members opposite can explain it away whichever way they choose. The figures would not have been running in that direction, however, but for the nationalisation of the mines.
The principal point to which the right hon. Member addressed himself, and about which he felt there was very great objection as far as Members opposite were concerned, related to organisation. With the permission of the House, I propose to devote a little time to dealing with this vitally important question. Unless I am completely mistaken regarding the proposals which the Opposition have put forward, there is grave danger that if their views about reorganisation were put into effect we should be involved, perhaps, in industrial chaos. I shall give my reasons as I proceed.
The organisation of the coal industry consists first of approximately 1,000 collieries, the day to day operational unit; above that the 48 area general managers; above that level the eight divisional boards, and the National Coal Board exercising authority above that. That seems a perfectly reasonable type of organisation. In this respect, the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel
1458
Lancaster) has made certain pronouncements which have received, and rightly received, wide publicity. In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, he had this to say and it is because of the great importance of this that I bring it to the notice of the House:
"The principle is one to which I remain constant. It is that administrative emphasis should be as near to the point of production as is possible and that, superimposed above that, should be a central board whose main purpose is that of policy and such other activities as are obviously of a national character."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1675–6.]
I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree, that the operative term there is, "as is possible." I take it the hon. and gallant Member would say that possibilities here must be considered as being secondary to efficiency; that is to say, one could have an operational unit which was too small. One could in such a case be as near as possible to the point of production, but have inefficiency. Efficiency must enter the argument and it is important that the House should have an opportunity of considering what the Board have to say on this very important matter. In paragraph 379 they say:
"Viewing the coal industry as a whole, the most important organisational change since nationalisation has been the amalgamation of some 800 company headquarters into 48 Areas, each of the size of the few large and efficient colliery companies' headquarters in the industry before nationalisation. This change was made because it had been agreed on all sides that the size of most of the management units in the industry had in the past been too small for full efficiency. The other main change was the replacement of some 800 boards of directors pursuing separate policies by eight Divisional Boards working within the limits of a national policy laid down by the National Coal Board. This was a corollary of nationalisation."
Here we are in the position of saying that there was a necessity to provide a commercial unit which, if too small, would be inefficient and, if too large, would be inefficient, and the National Coal Board in their re-organisation clearly took certain precedents into account. I think it is clear that if it be alleged that the arrangements they made up to that point were wrong, then the onus of proof is upon those who assert it. The onus of proving that there should be something different is not discharged merely by alleging that there is something wrong with the present arrange-

1459
ment. Here is an organisational change which is not only quite clearly referred to, but is referred to in terms which specify the reasons for the change having been made.
That brings me to a question which has been raised very recently concerning the colliery managers. We are entitled to ask what happened to the colliery managers in this organisational change. Is it a fact that they were put into a position in which they were frustrated and really incapable of carrying on their jobs, or carrying them on not as efficiently as before? In that respect the Board have something very clear to say in paragraph 403:
"Looking at the coal industry as a whole, the discretion exercised by Colliery Managers and the responsibility they carry for safety and for day-to-day operations remain large. They are not much more and certainly not less than they were before the advent of the National Coal Board."
That statement I have been at pains to check by such evidence as I could obtain by my own personal inquiries and I find it is abundantly confirmed by the facts. That, I claim, means that unless the clearest evidence to the contrary can be brought forward by those who say that managers are in a relatively inferior position compared with what they were in before, they have not discharged the burden of proof. In the absence of their coming forward with clear evidence, their assertions upon this point must quite clearly be nonsensical.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the principle which determines the selection of the size of areas. Obviously, if areas are too small they will be inefficient and if they are too large they will be inefficient. In the course of the argument in paragraph 406, the Board say:
"The number and size of the Areas were not matters of speculation or rule of thumb. The facts of geography and geology spoke for themselves as did the experiences of the larger companies in the industry which had secured increased efficiency by concentrating management in large units."
Here again the arrangement of the organisation of the Board so far as areas were concerned was decided upon after the consideration of a very important principle. I must confess that
1460
I find it extremely difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde in suggesting that there should be an increase in the size of those areas. If the number of areas had been reduced then, quite obviously, there must be an increase in size and there must be a remoteness from the point of production, which, it seems to me, conflicts with the very principle the hon. and gallant Member was putting forward.
That brings me to the point of decentralisation. It seems that here there is a duty resting upon the Opposition which, up to the present, they have not even begun to discharge. They have created an impression in certain quarters that there is not sufficient decentralisation. They have made assertions that the National Coal Board are not really serious in this matter at all and are not decentralising enough. That being so, surely the Opposition must prove very clearly that there are decisions made by the Board which are made at too high a level. That is to say, that by making some rearrangements a decision could come nearer to the point of production. They must show that in order to carry out the principle put forward by the hon. and gallant Member. In the leading article of "The Times" today the point is taken and it is stated that the Burrows Committee recommended more decentralisation than the Board were prepared to accept. That simply is not true.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: How does the hon. Member know?
Mr. Williams: Let us be clear about that. The allegation is made that the National Coal Board had not accepted the recommendation. It is not for me to come forward and behave as if I had to prove something. I am saying there is no evidence of that at all. The only evidence we have as to what the Burrows Committee have recommended is to be found in such information as is published. Whether that information is satisfactory or not it is all the information which the writer of the leading article in "The Times" can have or which my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite can have.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member really cannot hold it against the Opposition that we are not in a position to

1461
criticise recommendations in the Burrows Report because we have not seen it. That is precisely our main objection. What the hon. Member is saying may be true or not, but he does not know.
Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman—I say this in a friendly spirit—is obviously suffering from confusion of thought. Here is a statement which says that the Burrows Committee recommended more decentralisation than the Board were prepared to accept. I say, firstly, that there cannot possibly be any proof of that, and that such evidence as we have which sets out the proposals made by the Burrows Committee lead inevitably to the conclusion that that statement is untrue.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is equally possible that the statement published in the Coal Board's report about what the Burrows Report said is untrue, and unless we see the report we do not believe what is said about it.
Mr. Williams: I repeat the point for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman. With great respect, I shall put it in the simplest possible form. Here is set out in appendix V of the report which we are considering the main recommendations of the Committee on Organisation.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member does not know that that is so.
Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman is asking the question, "Is there any recommendation in the Burrows Report one way or the other?" the answer is that we do not know. That does not alter the fact that a statement made to the effect that there were recommendations which this House and the country have never seen and which the National Coal Board have not accepted, is obviously an untrue statement.
Let us see if we can find some evidence which in some way would corroborate or modify that point of view. Fortunately we find it, and in my submission it is rather strong evidence, of which the House should take particular note. It appears in paragraph (ii, d) in appendix V on page 233 in the report. Here we have one of the main recommendations of the Committee on Organisation, that is the Burrows Committee. The recommendation is that:
1462
"The Divisional Chairmen should become members of the National Board, making a Board of nineteen Members in all."
That is the main proposal as set out here. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman is so moved. I will readily give way to him if he wishes to interrupt, but while he remains seated I cannot hear what he is saying. This is what the National Coal Board have to say about it, this being a recommendation which they refuse to accept.
"The inclusion of the Divisional Chairmen on the National Board would lead to unnecessary centralisation in two ways."
Then they go into details indicating quite clearly how there would be more centralisation. So far as we can judge this issue, we can see that the National Coal Board have quite clearly taken measures on this very point which make it clear that they will not agree with recommendations which would result in more centralisation.
I wish to put this to hon. Members opposite, and I promise that it is a teaser, but the onus of proof is upon them, not upon us. They say that there is too much centralisation, that there is not sufficient decentralisation. I should like them to take three principal points in relation to the administration of the National Coal Board, the first being capital expenditure, the second wage negotiations and the third personnel policies, and to indicate to this House in the course of the Debate or to the country, wherever they have any influence, how they can possibly argue that on any of these three points—and they are vitally important points—the decisions made by the National Coal Board in its various departments are made at a higher level than they should be.
In the absence of a reply to that query we are entitled to say that this suggestion that there is too much centralisation is just so much humbug and that the observation of the Opposition on this point bear a great resemblance to their attitude on another matter in relation to their policy which they will not disclose. I refer to their making criticisms of expenditure generally but being very shy about saying which particular items. Here again they say, "Let us have plenty of decentralisation; we are wedded to this, but the National Coal Board will not support us; therefore they are inefficient." They are as shy on this subject as on the other

1463
when it comes to specifying particular points about which they urge there is too much centralisation.
There is a final point, which I am sorry to have to bring before the House. The right hon. Gentleman having obviously taken the view in the course of his remarks that he must dig out every possible point upon which to make objections concerning the Coal Board, I would say to him that I hope that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will think twice about proceeding further with the smear campaign which is going on so far as the National Coal Board are concerned. When I see the right hon. Gentleman, who is quite obviously a most skilled and experienced debater and Parliamentarian, speaking on the National Coal Board report, thereby putting himself in a position that he must accept nationalisation, yet directing so many of his arguments not to whether nationalisation has been carried out efficiently by the Board but against nationalisation itself, I consider that he has been dominated by political prejudice, and it is very regrettable that that should be so. He is giving aid and comfort to the smear campaign which is taking place in the Press.
I could go on for a long time on that particular point but I shall give only four examples. They will suffice; they are pretty mean ones. They are observations which should never have been made, and I hope that there will be from the other side of the House some indication that they are not approved of, at any rate by some hon. Members opposite. In March, 1949, it will be remembered that there were reports in the Press concerning the constitution of Coal Industry Nominees Ltd., and it was suggested that it anticipated the power to operate overseas which at the time the Government was asking Parliament to grant. That was a shocking thing to suggest. It was absolutely untrue; there was not a vestige of truth in it.
There are many who will remember the wide publicity given to the observations of Miss Naomi Jacobs. Her remarks concerning the silly night-club guide which it was stated had been circulated to members of the staff of the Board were widely reported in the Press. There again there was not the slightest foundation for it. It was simply part of the smear cam-
1464
paign with the idea of making it appear as if the Coal Board and its employees were not properly carrying out their responsibilities.
There was a shocking example in the "Daily Graphic" concerning the Divisional Board offices at Dover. There were disgraceful and untrue statements set out in the article. To make it quite clear that there was serious objection to the Divisional Coal Board and everything associated with it, there was a picture of a lady holding her nose to give an obvious impression of disgust and contempt. There again there was not the slightest authority for or truth in the allegations which were made. I hope that we shall hear less of the ridiculous statements which were made in the "Daily Express" and in some other newspapers concerning the National Coal Board cars. Wide publicity has been given to that.
What we are really facing here, quite obviously, is a smear campaign against the National Coal Board and everything associated with it. In whatever cloud cuckooland, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends find that there are grave defects in present industrial relationships, I, speaking for the miners in this House, can say we look forward to the future of the National Coal Board, with co-operation and with the highest hopes of success.
6.12 p.m.
Colonel Lancaster: If I do not follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) immediately in that part of his speech which referred in particular to the Coal Board organisation, I will attempt to do so when I come to it in the latter part of what I have to say.
In laying down certain generalities in regard to the discussion which would occur in this House in connection with the nationalised industries, I think the Minister left out two points which are of some importance. First, there will be a tendency for hon. Members to become rather more remote from the problem as it goes on. Those who have taken a practical part in the running of the industry will become fewer and fewer; and indeed the managerial side may tend to go by default altogether. Secondly, in regard to our attitude towards public boards and the National Coal Board in particular and this is some reference

1465
to what was said by the hon. Member for Wigan—they do carry out many functions and have wide fields of activities which it is the duty of Parliament to consider, and indeed to criticise.
If the Opposition or any hon. Member feels it his duty to draw attention to any shortcomings of the National Coal Board corporately or individually, he is entitled to do so, and it is absurd to stigmatise that as either unfair or unpatriotic. It is his duty to do so, and the Minister will no doubt take the opportunity of defending the National Coal Board and correcting hon. Members who may have made unreasonable criticisms. We have seen one aspect of the organisation of the industry in the speech of the Minister, who quoted a great mass of statistics. They were relevant but I do not think one can either prove or disprove this case purely on statistics. This industry, possibly more than any other, is a living organism, and statistics only represent one aspect of the matter.
As the Minister rightly said, the occasion of today's Debate is something of a precedent. We are today reviewing the stewardship of the National Coal Board, and I should like to add my congratulations on the form of the report which has been brought out. Further, we have an opportunity today of passing judgment on the methods they have used to carry out their job. If we do our job objectively, I think we must have regard to one or two salient facts. To my mind, the most important are the price of coal and the volume of our exports. In regard to the price of coal, the pithead price of coal at this moment is 48s. 5½d., and is higher than ever before. In regard to the volume of exports, we know it is running at about 19 million tons.
In my submission, the price of coal is not only making our position in the home market a very difficult one, but it played no inconsiderable part in the dollar crisis that we have recently been discussing. So far as exports are concerned, as has been freely admitted today, we should, and could, be exporting a great deal more than we are already. If we are to take into account why these two figures are so unsatisfactory, I think we must dwell for a few moments on the course of events which have led up to that situation.
1466
Hon. Members will remember that a short six weeks elapsed before the decision in regard to the date of vesting day was given. A great many very hasty decisions were arrived at, and some unsuitable appointments were made. That was followed shortly afterwards by the fuel crisis, and in due course by the resignation of Sir Charles Reid and Mr. Gridley, followed at a later stage by the setting up of an inquiry by the Burrows Committee, to which I shall refer again. That was followed by the Coal Industry Bill.
At no stage during all that period has there, in my submission, been a clear recognition by the Government or the Coal Board that something drastic needed to be done; that at some point the surgeon's knife was needed. There has been nothing but improvisation and expediency. Let me dwell for a moment on the Burrows Report, to which some reference has been made today. I took the trouble in the spring of this year to make such inquiries as I could into the methods employed by that committee. I found what to me is a disturbing situation. I saw a number of the areas to which the committee had gone to make their inquiries. I asked, and was given very freely, an account of what had transpired.
So far as I can make out, the Burrows Committee turned up with a questionnaire, many questions of which were purely elementary, and the time devoted to these various areas was a matter of an hour or two. Surely the sensible thing would have been to select one or two areas at random and to have devoted a fortnight at least to studying their methods, their form of administration and how a superior authority, either by way of division or the National Coal Board, impinged on their activities. The methods to which we have seen reference in the report might have been done more scientifically, in which case the report might have been a little different.
Almost 18 months ago, in a speech in this House, I criticised the structure and administration of the National Coal Board and gave my views as to how the position could be improved. Despite the various points which have been raised today, I do not propose to repeat at length those views. I have produced them in pamphlet form and they have received very wide publicity. I do not

1467
think that I should be justified in asking the House to bear with me if I reiterated them. Certainly nothing has occurred since that time to make me wish to modify or to alter them substantially. I hold by what I then said.
My views which were expressed in pamphlet form were complemented by those of Sir Charles Reid at very much the same time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said, the value, such as it was, of those two approaches to the problem was that we had approached it from our separate experiences, Sir Charles Reid most particularly as a technician and I from the point of view of the administration of the industry. Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary were Members of the House when the Reid recommendations were debated. I remember clearly the enthusiasm with which those recommendations in the name of Sir Charles Reid were accepted, not only by Labour Members, but by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
It seems odd that because Sir Charles Reid and the National Coal Board have parted company and because their views on various matters do not happen to coincide, Sir Charles Reid at this stage should be held in any less esteem and repute than he was when these recommendations were received by the House. I wish to say quite frankly that I attempted to frame my proposals to give practical effect to the Reid recommendations, and I have yet to hear from the Government that, in fact, they represent something different from what the Reid Committee themselves would have produced by way of a practical form in which to apply the recommendations.
The Minister injected what I thought was a little prejudice into the Debate when he said that I produced these recommendations as somebody who had had some connection with the industry and, indeed, I might have produced them on the advice of Sir Charles Reid. Has it ever occurred to the Minister that I might have taken counsel away beyond Sir Charles Reid? There were other members of that committee. Is it to be supposed that members of the National Coal Board never discuss these matters with hon. Members who do not happen to be members of the Labour Party? Of
1468
course they do, and the Minister very well knows it.
What is this malady for which we are attempting to find a cure? Is it not substantially that, whereas during the last 20 years, more particularly during the last decade and most particularly during the last three years, although the amount of mechanisation in the pits has trebled, the output per man-shift has altered very little indeed? Here I wish to correct something which I think the Minister said inadvertently, but which in fact was wrong. Intensive mechanisation relatively means more men on the coalface but fewer effective coal getters. That is an important point. I know that the Minister inadvertently gave the impression that it was otherwise. In fact, it means more men on the coalface although there are fewer coal getters.
Mr. Gaitskell: All I wanted to make clear in that part of my speech was that a change in the number of face-workers is not necessarily associated with increased output. I said that normally it would be.
Colonel Lancaster: As long as we are not at variance in the matter, I am content. The point I wish to make is that, since it means fewer effective coal getters, any weak link in that chain has an effect out of greater proportion than it had hitherto. The importance of team work and leadership becomes paramount. Mechanisation depends for its success more on leadership than possibly any other system, not only at the level of the mechanised unit itself but throughout every level in the industry. It is because we do not consider that the present structure and organisation lends itself to leadership at its best that we have put forward these proposals.
I could have been criticised when I first put them forward on the ground that they were premature. After all, it was only 18 months after the introduction of nationalisation. The Minister has added to that that probably I was influenced partly by prejudice and partly by emotion. I can assure the Minister that one cannot run the coal industry on emotion. For a great many years I had been trying to run a small part of that industry. I have never contended, as it has been reported in the Press, that all these semi-autonomous units which I have

1469
recommended would be financially profitable straight away, or indeed, in some cases, for a very long time; but I do not think that that is a very valid reason why a considerable degree of autonomy should not be passed to these regions. All this comes back to the same factor—highly mechanised costs with low output per man-shift mean expensive and insufficient coal for our needs and for export.
I believe that, whatever the future course of industry, there will be an indictment of this Government and of the National Coal Board on two main points. The indictment will be, not that they made their initial mistakes—those are incidental—but that they rushed into this problem without sufficient thought. That has been freely admitted by the former Minister. Having made this mistake, they have not been prepared to make the changes and alterations which were required.
I believe that they started their task with two false premises. First, the view was taken that everything was wrong with the coal industry. Whereas in fact there were a great many individual pits, even areas and coal regions, which were becoming out of date and which were falling behind, there were nevertheless, a number of concerns which were as efficient, both technically and administratively, as anything either in Europe or in the United States of America. I think that it would have been far better in the first instance for them to have modelled their organisation on these good concerns and to have attempted to bring the rest up to the same standard.
The second mistake, and this was made in particular by the late Minister of Fuel and Power, was to ignore the fact that there were and there are two parties in management. The Minister of Health himself fell into very much the same error in his weekend speech at Middlesbrough. I think a recognition of this error is slowly appearing, but there are, and almost always must be, the administrator and the technician, sometimes, admittedly, the same person, but more often than not two separate individuals.
Mr. Murray: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, will he answer a question? He mentioned that he wished to set a high
1470
standard and bring all the others up to it. Will he not agree that there are pits in this country which it is impossible to bring up to the higher standard?
Colonel Lancaster: I quite agree with the hon. Member, but what I was referring to in particular was the organisation and administration of the industry. But I am coming again to that point.
I think it may be of value for a few moments to draw aside the curtain in regard to nationalisation. This may very well be the last occasion in this Parliament, so far as this industry is concerned, on which we may debate this matter, and there are certain things which need to be said. First, I think we have seen, on the first occasion in this country, the country divided industrially into two parts, and I will explain what I mean by that. The Minister suggested that I have had some connection with the coal industry, but I am not going to go beyond my own experience in this matter, although I assure hon. Members opposite that my experience was not unique. I have discussed this with a great many of my colleagues, who have had very nearly the same experience as myself.
When vesting day occurred, I was taken over by the National Coal Board, and for some months remained a servant of the Board. On vesting day, I handed over to the nation certain physical and administrative assets. Amongst them, I handed over a pit which in a short time has become one of the biggest in the country. Bigness has its own problems. I handed over another pit which was the most modern in technique in the country, with possibly one exception, and that in itself had a number of problems. I handed over another pit which had been a pioneer in die introduction of American power-loading methods. These were the physical problems.
In matters affecting personnel, I handed over a scheme for training young entrants which had been shown to be very successful. I handed over the first vocational training centre in the country, and a method of personnel management which has been very widely copied since, though a great many mistakes have been made about it. On the purely administrative side, I handed over the largest road distributing system in the country, and an office system which has been very

1471
closely followed in various divisions of the National Coal Board.
These were not things I had inherited, but things which, together with my staff, I had created over a period of years, and I knew a great deal about them. I give hon. Members opposite the assurance that on no single one of these points was my opinion ever sought by higher authority, and such opinions as I gave were completely disregarded. I had shown my willingness to co-operate. Before nationalisation, I had submitted my views on the organisation of the area to which I had given many years of thought, to the Board and the Minister for their use. There was no matter to which I referred which was in any way a political matter. These were industrial matters, and I cannot believe that it was in the interests of the nation that the National Coal Board or any other Board should wish to disregard advice from those able to give that advice merely on the score that they had opposed nationalisation before it took place or were of the opposite way of thinking politically.
It was not only limited to that. I was invited to express my views in the magazine "Coal," as I have already told the House, but my article was banned on the score that it was against the interests of discipline in the pits, although these are views which have been discussed up and down the Industry. That was perfect nonsense, of course. I mention these things because the Minister made the suggestion to the House that my connection was one of a somewhat flimsy nature. It was not; it was a very real one, and it is that of a great many others who have played an important part in this industry and whose advice was ignored in precisely the same way.
The real significance of that is that it has produced a one-sided result. We have the views of the National Coal Board and the Minister, which quite naturally coincide, expressed in the report and in speeches made on their behalf, but when another side to this view is expressed, either it is suggested that it is a view of disappointed men or those who, because of their remoteness from the industry, are not worth listening to. That is entirely wrong.
We have come to the conclusion that this industry is being conducted in the
1472
wrong fashion. My party have in great measure accepted the views which I have expressed. I do not myself think that the Government at this late hour are going to do anything about it. I have never pretended to the House that I have other than complete faith in the coal industry, and I am quite certain that, in a few years, it will return to the position which it held before the 1914–18 war. I do not think it will do so under the present system; I can only hope that, with a General Election, wiser counsels will prevail.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Edelman: I could not help feeling, while listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) and his right hon. Friend who spoke before him that when they came to the cheerful passages in the report they became correspondingly melancholy, and when they spoke of difficulties they correspondingly brightened up. I was glad to notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in blaming the success of the National Coal Board in the export trade on the weather.
For my own part, if I speak in this Debate tonight I do so with a certain diffidence, because traditionally the subject of coal has been left to specialists and those with an interest in the coal industry. The fact is that the coal industry today has now become a public possession. It has become, in a very literal sense, everybody's business, and for that reason—quite apart from the fact that I myself spent many years of my life in a coalmining area, and the fact that my own constituency is situated in the Warwickshire coalfield and has two important collieries—I want to make a contribution to this Debate because I feel that it is of concern to everybody to see that this pilot industry of nationalisation should succeed.
There is one particular figure in the report which has been referred to and which must cause concern to every person, and that is the figure of 6.4 per cent. for absenteeism in 1938. Let me say at once that in 1938, although the coal industry had the bloom of health on its appearance, it was none the less suffering from a wasting disease, and that despite the fact that in that year its actual production of coal was almost a record. The

1473
proof of that is that as soon as opportunities were afforded to the coalminers to leave the industry, for example, after the call-up of 1940–41, they did so in ever increasing numbers, and as many as possible refused to return. Indeed, in those days it was a commonplace in the mining valley that no coalminer or his wife would willingly encourage their son to "go down the pit."
The fact that since those days the trend has been reversed, that the line of manpower has been maintained in face of difficulties, and that today production per man-shift has reached 1.14 tons per shift—which is equal to the production in 1938—is, I believe, a vindication of nationalisation, and a tribute to the work done by the Minister and the Coal Board. Nevertheless, it is true to say that absenteeism today, which ranges from 12 to 13 per cent., is a most serious handicap to the coal industry. But in 1938, when absenteeism was only 6.4 per cent., it is significant that it corresponded with an average weekly wage in the industry of £2 15s. Today, the weekly wage of the coalminer is £8 10s. The fact that in 1938 absenteeism could be kept at such a low level has a direct reference to the low wages which were paid and which made it imperative that the worker, whether he was fit or unfit, whether he was so inclined or disinclined, should go to the coal face and hew coal.
Today the goad and fear of not having enough with which to pay the week's bills have to a great extent disappeared with the increase in wages in the industry. But no alternative incentive has yet been offered to make the coalminer voluntarily reach as low a level of absenteeism as in 1938. What is required in the pits today is a social incentive to replace the low-wage goad which was responsible for good timekeeping in 1938. Under present conditions it will only be possible for this social incentive to work properly if the coalminer really feels that he is part of the organisation and not merely receiving instructions from above—that he is actually taking part in the total act of production, and not simply in the mere act of manual labour or coal winning.
I cannot help feeling that the present system of delgation of powers in the coal industry—what the Coal Board's report calls the "line and staff system"—is not
1474
the best way of making the coalminer feel that he is actually part of the coal winning unit. The reason is that the "line and staff system" is based upon a purely military analogy. Its basis is that powers should be delegated and devolved until, finally, we come to the man who is, so to speak, the foot soldier of the mining industry. That system of looking down on the miner from above is clearly not consistent with what, I think, he is—the most important person in the coalmining industry.
It also leads to another very dangerous result, namely, that once we start multiplying staffs down the line of command, the person who is the divisional or area commander will want to inflate his staff as much as possible. It gives him a sense of power and importance. That is why I believe that in the structure of the coal industry today and in the structure of the National Coal Board, there is a tendency to have exaggeratedly large staffs, which are, of course, a very serious charge on overheads.
There are, it is true, the colliery consultative committees. Reading, in particular, the example given in the National Coal Board's report and some of the comments of certain colliery managers on these consultative committees, I could not help feeling that they are not being taken as seriously as they should be, and that the function of bringing the miner into the organisation as a whole has not been properly carried out. For example, I noticed that there was one reported reference by a pit manager to the effect that the men who came to his colliery consultative committee came merely in order to get the 5s. attendance money. If, in fact, that is the attitude of the manager towards the people who take part in his particular committee—though I doubt very much if it is the attitude of the workers—then it is certainly very unlikely that those committees will really become integrated into the structure of the industry, and that the miner will feel that he is part of the whole.
I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde who said that the industry cannot be run by emotion. For my part, I believe that unless there is emotion in the coal industry we shall not be able to run it at all. I shall give one example. Only a short time ago,

1475
I am told, Lord Hyndley attended a Durham miners' rally, and as he was watching the procession of miners he was deeply moved to see among the banners and the portraits being carried a portrait of himself. I cannot imagine that in the days before nationalisation, in a celebration of that kind, a portrait of the colliery owner would have been carried in procession. Indeed, I venture to believe that if in the days before nationalisation the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde had suddenly looked out of his window and seen his portrait carried in procession, he would have thought that the revolution had arrived, looked for the tumbrel's approach, and rung up the police.
The feeling of the man in the pit towards his organisation and the emotional attitude of the miner towards the coal industry as a whole are of paramount importance. The colliery consultative committees must be strengthened, their prestige enhanced, and, in short, the miner must really feel that although the manager has the ultimate responsibility for management and safety, he himself is not merely a labouring unit in the pit, but is a man playing a part in helping the recovery of a great national industry.
I turn from that to another point which I approach with considerable hesitation because it is a technical matter. I hope that hon. Members on both sides who have great mechanical and technical knowledge of the coal industry will quickly correct me if I am mistaken in my facts. It has occurred to me on the many occasions that I have been down pits that in the process of mechanisation which has taken place during the last few years the operation has been out of phase. Everybody knows that in coal-mining there is a cycle of operations and that, if one of the individual operations does not tally with the rest, the result is a slowing up of production and a corresponding loss of output.
So far in the mining industry the actual hewing and winning of the coal has been mechanised to a great extent. I believe the figure is something like 77 per cent. The conveying of the coal from the coal face has also been mechanised to approximately the same degree, but in between these two operations, and to complete the cycle of operations, is the
1476
job of loading the coal on to the conveyor in order to get the coal away. That is done manually. The result is that while one operation, the winning of coal, is going on at a highly mechanised rate, and while the end operation is going on at a corresponding rate, in between there is a substantial lag which means a very severe loss in production.
I know that many of the power loading machines, such as the Mecco-Moore for example, are not suitable for certain pits. I realise that many of the American machines are not suitable for power loading in this country. But if that is so, and given the fact that power loading is technically and mechanically possible and desirable, and given also the fact that it is an essential element in the cycle of coal production, it seems to me that the Coal Board should have given far greater weight in the general mechanisation of the pits to the problem of power loading, so that today instead of power loading being an operation which takes place in between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the pits in this country, it should be brought up to the 77 per cent. or so which is the rate of mechanisation for the hewing and conveying of coal.
I want to make two short points before I conclude. In the first place, it seems to me that under a system of nationalisation it is of the greatest importance that the National Union of Mineworkers and all the unions concerned in the coal industry should recognise that their function has been to a great extent modified. Instead of merely defending the men against injustice, as they have so nobly done in the past, instead of confining their activities to wage negotiation as they have so successfully been during many difficult years, in the new state of affairs one of the duties and obligations of the unions in the coal industry should be to encourage technical training so that there is a steady passage of mineworkers into the technical grades. Not only the actual workers but the sons of workers should be helped to move into the ranks of management.
Before nationalisation the attitude of the miners to management was that if a miner took a miner's certificate he promptly passed over and joined a different class. Those were the days when the coal industry was divided into what I might call, "We and they"; in other

1477
words, on one side were the men and on the other side was that vague mass of people who represented the owners, all standing for a completely different interest. Today I think it true to say—and I doubt if anyoneoneither side of the House would disagree—that with the coal industry under public ownership, the conception of "We and they" should disappear. I should like to see a steady passage from the ranks of the men who work manually to the ranks of management, with the encouragement and help, and indeed the financing, of the miners' unions.
Lastly, I want to say a word about the export of coal. I was glad to read Lord Hyndley's view that the export market is likely to flourish for some time to come, and I was also glad to hear that view confirmed by the Minister this afternoon. But anybody who remembers the slump in the 1920's, when the British coal industry had to face the competition of reparations coal and of continental coal generally, will view the future with some apprehension and doubt, unless he feels assured that the Government, exercising foresight, are looking forward to what might be the situation if the coal from the Ruhr actually comes on to the markets of Europe and of the world, if the coal of Silesia begins to be exported again, and if the coal in the French mines increases in output with the result that our own export market contracts.
That is a danger which we have to consider. The points I want to put to the Minister in that connection are "Is the European Coal Organisation still functioning? If so, is it co-ordinating the plans of the various coal-producing countries, and in the quota allocations which are likely to be made by that organisation for the export trade in European coal in the years to come, has Britain been assured of her place?
I believe that the report of the Coal Board is excellent, and triumphantly vindicates the act of nationalisation. It confirms that during the past year the management of the industry has been good. It shows that while there is much still to be done, the achievement already realised is great, and for those reasons the report, with the reservations I have mentioned has my full support.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. Vane: I do not think that Lord Hyndley need feel so very flattered to find himself among those whose portraits were carried in procession on a banner at Durham Miners' Gala. Anyone who has been to Durham Miners' Gala—and I have attended it many times—will know that a good time is had by all. Lord Hyndley would find himself in strange company if it included those people whose portraits were carried not long ago when Communism was not so far out of fashion in some of the miners' lodges in that part of the world as it is today.
When we discuss coal in this House it is natural that we should speak mainly of production, export, manpower, absenteeism, mechanisation, organisation and such matters. The right hon. Gentleman invited us today to treat this Debate as something in the nature of a shareholders' meeting and invited us to ask questions, and I wish to ask one question on administration. If we look at Schedule XII of the report we find that by far the largest item of expenditure is wages. The next largest item is No. 12, £66,907,179, and is described as "Raw materials and general stores."
I think it is only fair that we should consider not only what we are going to do with the coal that we produce but also what are the necessary stores and materials which we must have if we are going to produce any coal at all. I suspect that probably the largest item concealed in that figure of £66 million-odd is timber. If we do not have timber in large quantities we cannot expect to produce large quantities of coal. Everyone knows that although steel is coming into use as a substitute, it is certainly not a complete substitute. If we look for mention of timber in this voluminous report we find only the sketchiest of references and we are left to imagine the rest. We know already that it is expensive and in short supply in the world. From search in other official documents we can find that of props alone something like two million tons are imported per annum, while something like another 500,000 tons are found from home resources. That concerns props alone, whose importance is referred to under "Roof supports" in various paragraphs.

1479
We also know that that is by no means the end of the story. Vast quantities of sawn timber are also used for sleepers, chocks and other purposes. I think that a report of this size might have told us a little more about where these most essential supplies come from today and where, in a world of increasing difficulties, they expect to draw them in the future. Not only is it a very large amount but a large proportion comes from dollar sources. In statements by right hon. Gentlemen opposite or by the Coal Board, when talking about the foreign exchange and particularly the dollars which we win from coal exports, I have never heard them say at the same time, that we are already spending large amounts on very necessary materials from dollar sources. Over the last few years the figures have been something like £6 million worth of dollars spent on this timber alone. In the first eight months of this year £8 million have been spent on imported props and of that over £2 million on props from Canada.
It is not so very long ago that the Prime Minister talked in this House of cuts. He said we should have to make do with less of certain commodities and one of them was timber; I think we ought to be told today whether we shall have to do with less imported mining timber. Has it been possible to find more from home sources and, as far as imports are concerned, will it be possible in the future to buy more from soft currency countries or must we assume that for every million tons of increased coal production we shall have to spend more dollars on purchasing timber. I do not think that is a small question; I make no apology for asking it and I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to give us at least a few words on that subject.
I have the authority of the National Coal Board for saying that 20 per cent. of the present consumption of props comes from home sources, but the President of the Board of Trade, when answering a Question not so very long ago, said that he thought the general level would settle down to something between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. That is a disturbing answer at this time when we might have thought that they would try to obtain a greater rather than a lesser percentage from home sources and so succeed in
1480
saving some valuable foreign currency which we could easily spend on something else.
As we all know, we do not want to leave any obstacle in the way of increased production nor do we want to do anything which will prejudice safety, but equally we do not want to have the National Coal Board indulging in what may be extravagant or possibly foolish buying overseas. Owing to the organisation, we have no means of asking questions on this subject except the means provided today. We know that the Timber Control section of the Board of Trade, which is a monopoly purchaser of mining timber overseas, works in close contact with the National Coal Board. The pre-war trade has virtually nothing to do today except to handle it at the ports when it arrives in this country and to distribute it.
We must also bear in mind, when we pass judgment on this, that timber obtained from overseas costs three times what it cost before the war, and is in many cases very nearly double the maximum controlled price fixed by the Board of Trade for home-grown props, which price often does not cover the cost of preparation. As far as I know, nothing has been done by the National Coal Board to try to encourage an improvement in the quality as well as in the quantity of the props produced from home woods.
I know it is widely believed in many districts—to some extent justifiably, although to a certain extent it is due to prejudice—that home-grown timber is always inferior to the imported article for mining purposes. As far as the average is concerned, it is true that the home-produced article is less good than the imported article, but as far as the best-prepared timber is concerned there is no practicable difference between imported and home grown. That has been borne out time and time again by scientific tests. There was another test conducted recently by the Forest Products Research Laboratory. This prejudice dies hard and at a time like the present—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I take it that the suggestion the hon. Member is making is that the Coal Board should try to obtain more from home-grown supplies and that he is

1481
not suggesting that the Coal Board should begin to plant trees for themselves, for example.
Mr. Vane: No.
Mr. Robens: The suggestion is, then, that they should get more home-grown supplies and are not doing so.
Mr. Vane: The National Coal Board must be facing the problem that they will want more timber in the future, and at a time of a world timber shortage that is not an easy question to answer, especially when we are short of foreign exchange, particularly dollars. The natural thing would be to look for a further development of home supplies and I can find no reference whatever to that in this report.
I hope we shall be told something about it, but I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to understand this—and this is called planning: the maximum price of timber, controlled by the Board of Trade, discourages the peeling of home grown props because the margin, which until the other day used to be 2d. is now 5d., and is less than the rate at which an ordinary man can do the work on piecework, which is about 6d. per cubic foot. In consequence the quality of the props which reach the collieries in this country is far too often inferior to the imported article. Hence, there is great reluctance on the part of the area buyers, no matter what instructions may come down from above, to buy the home-grown article, which in many cases goes to waste.
I do not want to labour this point for too long and my last point is this: the Parliamentary Secretary is a member of the Government, who have declared that it is their policy to develop the forestry resources of this country. It is necessary, if we are to grow good timber of large sizes and fine quality, that we should have the right outlets for our smaller sizes. No country in Western Europe has discovered any outlet equal to the coal trade for these small sizes. If we do not have that market the only possible alternative is the pulp market. This is now dead in England. Too often stuff lies on the ground to rot, so the work of the Minister of Agriculture is being torpedoed by his colleagues. From the Board of Trade figures we find that we are buying props from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France and Portugal,
1482
at the same time leaving our own material lying to waste in this country.
I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary to represent to the Coal Board that this is a very important matter, not only from the point of view of their own coal industry but from the point of view of other industries as well. When this House discussed the possible dictatorship within the coal industry which would result from nationalisation I doubt whether they realised that, at the same time, they were placing the National Coal Board in the position of dictator of the forestry of this country, That is the position they occupy at the present moment and they are not a very interested or benevolent dictator. We have been asked to take note of this most voluminous and, I think, circumlocutory report of the National Coal Board. I take note of it—not only of what it contains but also of what it omits.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. D. J. Williams: The performance of the Opposition in the House today has, I think, been most disappointing, and it seems to me that the chief responsibility for that lies with the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who opened the Debate for his party. I must say that I felt very disappointed with his performance; and so apparently were the Members of his own party who sit behind him, for I noticed that while there were about 80 people on the benches behind him when he started his speech, by the time he sat down there were exactly six Members of the Tory Party in the House.
We thought that this was to be a field day for the Opposition because the report of the Coal Board provided a splendid opportunity for them to attack nationalisation and to denigrate the Coal Board. I thought they would take full advantage of this opportunity and attack the Coal Board with full-throated and reckless abandonment. However, they have not done that. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Southport had merely two counts on which to condemn the Coal Board; first of all, that the Coal Board was a monopoly—and Tories do not like monopolies—and secondly, that the setup, the organisational structure, of the Coal Board was wrong. That, as we know, is the King Charles's head of the

1483
hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). I always listen to him with great respect because I appreciate the vast experience he has of the mining industry, but I do not think I am doing him an injustice when I say that he said nothing new tonight, and that all he said has been expounded in his pamphlet issued by the Conservative Central Office; and he has repeated it on more than one occasion in this House.
Now let me refer to some of the things said by the right hon. Member for Southport. He made a number of trivial and inelegant criticisms of the Coal Board, but he completely ignored the difficulties which the Coal Board inherited from private enterprise. He preserved a discreet silence on the position of the mining industry prior to nationalisation. He did not say a word about the Board's achievements, and he certainly did not put forward a single positive, constructive suggestion. He said a good deal about the shortcomings of the mining industry.
No one will deny, of course, that there are serious problems facing the Coal Board in the mining industry today. But this is not something new. One would imagine from some of the speeches made on the other side of the House that all these problems in the mining industry started in 1947 when the mines were nationalised, and that all the troubles of the industry were invented by the National Coal Board. They tried to convey the impression that the Coal Board ended a golden age of prosperity and tranquility in the mining industry. This view is part of the folklore of Tory propaganda. There are certainly difficult problems facing the National Coal Board, but the Coal Board did not create these problems; it inherited them from private enterprise, and they are not a pleasant legacy. Our present coal problems have ancient roots, and that indeed is what makes them so difficult to solve.
For years now the mining industry has been in a deplorable condition. The truth is that when the mining industry was nationalised it was dying on its feet. Hundreds of collieries had been closed regardless of the social consequences and regardless of the effects on the national economy. In the whole inter-war period, few new collieries had been opened. Hundreds of thousands of skilled miners
1484
had been scrapped—lost to the mining industry for all time. What would the Coal Board give today to get some of those people back! In addition, the industry had been overtaken by a sort of technical paralysis. Very little mechanisation or modernisation had been introduced because mining labour was too plentiful and too cheap. For the whole of the inter-war period this industry presented a sombre overall picture of decline, decadence and decay. This is the legacy which private enterprise left to the Coal Board.
Now the Opposition simulate indignation because the National Coal Board, in a matter of less than three years, has not transformed a dying industry into a flourishing and prosperous industry. Of course, we do not expect objective and constructive criticism from the Tory Party. They do not like nationalisation, and they do not like the National Coal Board. However, that is not surprising. What is surprising is the reason the Tories give for their disapproval. The main burden of the charge made against the Coal Board is that it is a monopoly. That was said today by the right hon. Member for Southport. The Tories, of course, will not have a monopoly at any price. They tell us that in all their publications, This is simply part of the mythology of Tory propaganda—that they are the champions of free enterprise and that they abominate monopoly in all its forms.
There has not been so much free enterprise in this industry as the Tories try to make out. In my own part of the coalfield, there has been no private enterprise for many years. There was no freedom and no enterprise. The Opposition's picture of this industry as a flourishing industry of free enterprise bears no relation at all to the facts. I want to remind the House of some of those facts. I have had a somewhat lengthy and varied experience of the mining industry, but I have had little or no experience of free enterprise in this industry, and certainly no experience of the free enterprise that the Tories like to talk about. That, if it ever existed in my part of the coalfield, had disappeared long before my time.
The Opposition have denounced the National Coal Board as a monopoly. Let me remind the House that there was a

1485
monopoly in the anthracite coalfield in South Wales for 25 years before the Coal Board was set up. The Tories did not denounce this private monopoly over an entire coalfield. Their objection, apparently, is not to monopoly as such. They always condone the private monopolies, and they condoned the private monopoly in the anthracite coalfield, though it nearly ruined the industry.
The establishment of this anthracite coalfield monopoly was a squalid affair. A powerful combine was built up, not by independent coalowners, but by financiers, speculators, sharepushers and "spivs" from the City of London. They extended their sway over the whole coalfield by ruthless and most unscrupulous methods. The independent owners were bought up, squeezed out, or ruined. They did not give up voluntarily; they were driven out. The combine bore down on them and mauled and mangled them to death. This process was not governed by the economic principles of the textbooks. It was governed by the economics and ethics of the jungle. If hon. Members opposite care to pay a visit to the anthracite coalfield we will show them the ruins and the relics of free enterprise. In the anthracite coalfield, indeed, the National Coal Board came just in time to save the coalfield from extinction, and there, particularly, the Board took over a bankrupt and derelict industry.
I am sorry there are no Liberals in their places.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am here, so there is one.
Mr. Williams: It is very difficult to say whether they are here or not. The Liberals ought to be interested in this story of this squalid anthracite monopoly, because I think it has a moral for them as a party, and I think it has a very close bearing on the decline of Liberalism as a political force in Wales. The Liberal Party has always denounced monopoly. Indeed, it rose to power on the doctrine of free trade, free competition and free enterprise; and monopoly to Liberals was always anathema. They regarded monopoly not simply as a departure from the principles of laissez faire, indeed, they regarded it as a violation of the laws of nature.
Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us in what part of the report there is this bit about the laws of nature and capitalism?
Mr. Williams: The National Coal Board's report deals with the coal industry, and I am speaking of one of the main problems which faces the Board. I was saying that this attitude to monopoly was a theory of Liberalism, but it was not always practised by prominent Liberals in this country. Thirty years ago, one of the most prominent Liberals in this country was Sir Alfred Mond, later Lord Melchett, who represented Swansea and Carmarthen in this House for many years. In Swansea he used to preach the undiluted gospel of Liberalism, but in the coalfield which forms the hinterland of Swansea he established a virtual monopoly of anthracite coal.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member had better keep to the report. He is getting rather a long way from it.
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to show the difficulty which the Coal Board have to meet in the South Wales coal mines. This is a very serious problem because one of the most difficult organisational problems facing the Coal Board today is to mechanise and modernise the anthracite coalfield. This is a very important coalfield, and it was left in ruins by years of neglect on the part of private enterprise.
The point that I want to make is that this denouncing of the Coal Board as a monopoly is quite irrelevant and meaningless in South Wales. There we knew something about monopolies long before the Coal Board was established. We had a long and grim experience of them. The problem which faced us in South Wales, which we had to decide in 1945, was not between monopoly and private enterprise—the real problem facing us in South Wales was whether the coalfield should be run as an industry in the public service or whether it should be owned as one private monopoly. The choice with us in South Wales was whether the mines should be nationalised or Powell Duffrynised. In 1945 the people of South Wales chose nationalisation, and in 1950 they will confirm that choice.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I think that I am the first speaker to venture into this Debate with no possible kind of claim to any sort of expertness.

1487
I hope that the House will think it fair to remember that the House of Commons is not primarily a panel of experts but a common jury on a grand scale. I shall certainly not attempt to inform the House about matters on which many are better informed than I. My speech will be almost wholly interrogative and even the questions I shall ask will not be of a technical, nor I hope even in the most indirect implication, of a pretentious, kind.
I should like to begin by saying a word to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. D. J. Williams). First of all, although I cannot speak for the Tory party, at any rate for that small section for which I can speak, I beg him to believe that I detest monopoly, wherever monopoly is, as much as he detests mythology or irrelevance. And secondly, I think that he was a good deal less than fair to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, because he said that nothing whatever had been said about the achievements of the Coal Board from this side, and I think that ought to be for the second time denied: my right hon. Friend began by expressing the gratitude and admiration which all of us have for the improvements in the matters of health and accident. It does not help our Debates for any one either to forget that expression, or to allow even his subconscious to suppose that such expressions are insincere.
Mr. Williams: That is an exception which proves that what I did say was correct.
Mr. Pickthorn: I think not. I think that every word that I have said is perfectly fair. Secondly, I do not know how the hon. Gentleman did his counting, but by a curious chance I kept on counting how many people there were on our side both during the first speech and the second, and since his figures will get into HANSARD I think that I ought to say that my figures were quite different from his. [HON. MEMBERS: "What were they?"] They were quite different from his.
We were invited at the beginning to treat this matter as rather more like a shareholders meeting than most of our Debates. I do not think that analogy wholly fair, although I by no means accuse the right hon. Gentleman of any intention of unfairness in that respect. I
1488
propose a little later to return to some of the reasons why I do not think it wholly fair, but before doing that I should like, if I may, to ask one or two questions which seem to be obviously of a shareholders' meeting sort.
Mr. Gaitskell: I was reading from the leader of the "Financial Times," which used that particular phrase.
Mr. Pickthorn: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was not only quoting but approving the suggestion. If I am correct on that, I would point out to him that he has now exceeded his ration of interrupting me, because he addressed the House for some 70 minutes and only permitted himself to be interrupted once. I will now, if I may, address through him to his—I was going to slip into saying zany but I do not intend to be offensive or facetious, so perhaps I should say his mate or second-in-command, one or two of the questions which seem to me appropriate to a shareholders' meeting. The first is about absenteeism. I hasten to say here first that I ask my question with no intention of criticising any one, neither the men, the management, the Government nor the Coal Board—I ask it because of a genuine thirst for information. I quite understand that I may be asking a foolish question because I may have misunderstood something, but as I understand the figures in the report and as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, illness and accident have very much, or at least considerably, diminished.
We are all delighted with that, although I think the National Coal Board if wise would not claim too much of the credit and not get too much into the habit of the Minister of Health, who is tempted to claim the credit for all improvements to health since Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood. There are improvements due to improved medicine, mechanical science and all sorts of things, and partly no doubt to the good administration of the National Coal Board. The fact is that absenteeism for illness or for accident has diminished considerably. We are all delighted with that. Yet it appears from the figures unless I am mistaken, that involuntary absenteeism is not so quick in diminishing, and I think not diminishing at all. I had supposed that involuntary

1489
absenteeism meant overwhelmingly absenteeism for medical reasons. If it does not mean that overwhelmingly, I shall be grateful if the House could be told what are the other main components of involuntary absenteeism, If I have been mistaken in the analysis of the figures, I hope that I may be corrected. That is one of the shareholder type of question that I wanted to ask.
Another shareholder type of question is about the use of what one would have supposed to be a capital figure in the profit and loss account. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with what I mean, but in the profit and loss account he will find credit taken—I think it is item 4; I do not know why that figure sticks in my head—for a not immense but still considerable item which on the face of it one would have supposed not to come into that account in that way, but to be a capital matter. I hope that perhaps he can tell us how that happens, or what misunderstanding there is in the matter.
Today the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks about the double price system, and it seems to me that this wants a little more elaboration and elucidation than we have had so far. As I followed him, he said, "Well of course prices in this country are low, because they are fixed; we fix them, and we fix them as low as we can. And of course," said he, "prices to foreigners are high because we can get it out of them. And why not?" That, I think, was the argument. It has already been said that that argument does not show a very longterm kind of political wisdom. I think it has already been indicated, if not expressly said, that that argument is an extremely strong argument against the socialisation of industries which necessarily reach across frontiers, and that does really want considering.
There are other reasons why it wants considering. You see, it has to be looked at upon a basis of our requiring help from foreigners—Americans and others—and upon the basis of our trading being open to objection in the opposite respect from the point of view of some foreigners. For instance, the other day we were told that we sell motor cars to the United States public at a loss. Now if as a result of the nationalisation of some industries, and practically complete con-
1490
trol by the Government of export industries, we are to be under the risk of being justly accused by foreigners whenever it may suit them, although we depend upon them for their kindness, on the one hand of profiteering out of them and on the other hand of dumping on them, then the continuation of an international economic system will become extremely difficult.
Nor on any explanation thus far given us by the right hon. Gentleman is this double price system at all compatible with any of the principles upon which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite hive risen to greatness. Where is your egalitarianism now? Where is your hate of profiteering now? Where is your internationalism now? If when you have got something to sell to a foreigner it is right to get as much out of him as you can, within limits of reason, and so on, regardless of your costs, then there is much to be said for that within the price-mechanism of a capitalist-enterprise system.
If that is right when you are dealing with foreigners, why is it not right when you are dealing at home? Alternatively, if there is some distinction between the two, where is your internationalism, the internationalism of the miners, particularly, who are or were awfully keen on internationalism and the like, sending money to chaps at places like Lens, for instance? These things do not really stand together, and we ought to have some explanation of that, otherwise we are bound to conclude that there is a good deal of muddleheadedness in the matter.
The main reason why I rose to my feet was because this is an important constitutional occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman very properly indicated to us in his opening remarks. Incidentally, the fact of his indicating that it was an important constitutional occasion—and I think this should go on record in HANSARD—makes complete nonsense of the leadership of this House during the last four years on the matter of nationalisation bills; because over and over again I argued that even one large nationalisation Bill had necessarily a large constitutional content, and that any planned complex of several nationalisation Bills a fortiori had an extremely large constitutional content.

1491
Although that was admitted sometimes at the beginning of this Parliament by hon. Gentlemen opposite before they saw the point of the admission, and although the Lord President of the Council over and over again promised at the Select Committee on Procedure, that Bills of any constitutional content should always be taken on the Floor of the House, yet they were not. But today the right hon. Gentleman, when he reminded us that this was an important and unprecedented constitutional occasion, made nonsense of the whole way in which the main legislative business of this House has been conducted for the last four and a half years.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were considerable fields of activity in mining where the Minister is not responsible, and I really think this question ought to be asked, even if it cannot be answered on the first of these occasions, and then perhaps repeatedly asked on other occasions until we do think out the answer to it: On those parts of this business where the Minister is not responsible, who is responsible? Really, all this technique of boards, corporations and whatnot, which have no liability, however limited, and have no responsibility which any man or any court can perceive, is only a way of removing from demccracy those things which the people are presumed to care most about. That is all they are, and let hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are keener on proclaiming themselves democrats than I am, reflect upon that. Who is responsible? The right hon. Gentleman told us, "The ultimate control of course rests with Parliament." Well, "ultimate" is a question-begging word. But waiving that, "of course" seems to be the interesting part of that sentence. In what course of Parliamentary procedure can we really make the Coal Board responsible to us, if it ought to be responsible to us, directly or indirectly? No indication was given to us of how that could be done.
Finally, I return to the point at which I began, where the right hon. Gentleman quoted approvingly the "Financial Times" as saying that we ought to treat this as a non-party matter, as a shareholders' meeting, or a council of State. He said that there was much to be said for the view of the "Financial Times."
1492
I agree; I think there is a great deal to be said for the view of the "Financial Times," and in that respect I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider some remarks of his own made—I have forgotten when—at Porthcawl, I think it was. He will remember the occasion; he was bathed that time—in tears. Do not think for a moment that in giving this quotation I am adopting the right hon. Gentleman's indictment of the miners. I do nothing of the sort; I do not know enough about it. This is what he said:
"How can any of us defend those who week after week are content to work four shifts only? How can we answer the criticism 'It is high wages that have done it. They make enough in four shifts'?"
Incidentally, practically every speech from the other side today has echoed that criticism rather strikingly. Any hon. Member carefully reading HANSARD tomorrow will see that time after time, implicitly, that has been said by almost every speaker opposite. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
"How can we explain the conduct of men who work three weeks full time and then take the fourth week off? Men who are supporters of the Labour Government, to whom that Government appeals at the moment of its greatest crisis?"
That was at the greatest crisis in July, 1948. Of course, we have had two greater ones since. No doubt if the dissolution is put off for another six months we shall have two more. That was in the days of the greatest crisis to date. What is meant by these words "Supporters of the Labour Government"?
How is it supposed that constitutional government of any sort is to survive and this House is to have any kind of constitutional control, how is it supposed that there is to be any real responsibility, how will those who manage and finance and direct and exploit—I use the word in no offensive sense, but in a neutral sense—the coal industry, be in any sense held responsible to this House and the British people if it is to be suggested that somehow or other men ought to work more when there is a Government of their party and less when there is a Government of another party?
Is that the suggestion or is it not? That suggestion was often made at the last General Election. It has been repeated explicitly and implicitly quite often by Ministers—I was going to say important

1493
Ministers—I mean more senior Ministers up till recently. We ought to be told before there is another General Election. The more great industries are nationalised, and others threatened with nationalisation, the more it becomes important for us to know; when, especially, what is called day-to-day management, and a good deal more than is reasonably so-called, is taken out of our hands, the more we should know Is it part of the duty of His Majesty's Ministers to make plain to His Majesty's subjects, however employed, that they should do a pound's worth of work for a pound, whether or not they like the boss's face or the characters, real or presumed, of the Treasury bench, just the same as the chap selling sweets sells a pennyworth of acid drops for a penny, not giving more or less because he may like or dislike the character, or the bonnet, of the buyer's mother? Is it the policy of the Government to inculcate that simple truth in His Majesty's lieges or is it not?
If the right hon. Gentleman really meant what he said among the slot machines at Porthcawl, then it is quite certain that that is the end of social democracy. You may get some sort of Socialism that way, but you cannot have that sort of Socialism compatible either with democracy or with parliamentary Government. I hope that to these questions I have put, all of which, I think, arise immediately out of the report and are relevant, concrete, direct, and simple, I may have some reply.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: The non. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will forgive me if I leave him to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member has admitted his shortcomings. Would that those in this House who are also endowed with that handicap would also admit their shortcomings, at least as far as the coal industry is concerned. Many years ago, more years than I care to remember, I worked in a certain coalfield where men were in the habit of describing those of whom they had a bad opinion in the words, "You are not a miner, you are a farmer." I understand that the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) is a farmer. I fear that if he is no better farmer than he is a critic
1494
of the mining industry then his agricultural executive committee will sell him up lock, stock and barrel.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am told by a colleague on the Front Bench here that the hon. Gentleman is being rude at my expense. I would only ask that he should speak up, so that I can hear what he is saying about me.
Mr. Pryde: I will give the right hon. Gentleman this answer:
"The Moving Finger writes and, having writ
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
The word is "splendid," as can be judged by the fine analysis of the Coal Board's work given to the House by the Minister. The first sentence on the front page says that output has been restored to pre-war figures. The report is neat, tidy, well set out and a compliment to its authors. It is chock full of that information which, in bygone years under private enterprise, was denied to us and the public generally. Today, the Tories tell us in their propaganda that the Coal Board is top heavy, but they omit to say that in the past many companies were served by duplicate directors. Sometimes these directors were directors of three, four, five, six or seven companies. The Coal Board have had to build from pit level. Today its superstructure is sound and subject to criticism, and will be annually, but in days gone by its superstructure was hidden from our eyes.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the recovery in the industry is greater than that in any other mining industry in the world. The report tells us what the Board have had to do to effect that recovery; it tells us how they introduced machinery. We in Scotland know something about the introduction of machinery into the industry. Twenty-five years ago, north of the Tweed, 75 per cent. of our coal was cut with aid of machinery. We welcome machines, and especially the Meco-Moore machine. Indeed, the miner will welcome the day when he goes to the pithead and is told that there is no further need for his services. But those days are in the dim and distant future. The report says that in 1947 there were 34 Meco-Moores at work. I have heard it said that the industry could do with

1495
fewer men, that 660,000 are quite sufficient. I wonder how many Meco-Moores will be needed to get the coal that is necessary?
I know the value of shipping coal, and I remember the day when 78 million tons of coal was shipped, excluding bunkers. This coal was taken to foreign parts and played an important part in our national economy. Private owners were responsible for denigrating that industry, but we know its value and miners are working to that end. The right hon. Member for Southport said there was bad feeling in the industry. He does not know the facts. The men in my branch of the union required no exhortation, especially from me. They said, "The Government and the country need our aid. We will work each Saturday." At present they are hitting their target week after week. In one neighbouring colliery of the great New Battle group, they have not got any Meco-Moores but they are using picks and shovels and putting their backs into it to compete against the skill of the men of the pit where the Meco-Moores are at work to see if they can produce more coal, and they are doing it. When hon. Gentlemen tell us that there is bad feeling in the industry, I can tell them that that is all wrong.
In 1948 the results showed an increase of £25 million over 1947. In 1947 the deficiency was £23½ million. In 1948 there is profit of £1.7 million. One hon. Gentleman talked about 100,000 people coming into the industry. They were Bevin boys and they held back the miner. It would have been far better if they had been put to work on the land where they could have been seen. When the coalminer goes down the pit nobody can see him. If we could lift the lid off and let the public see what the miner has to do for his living there would not be so many critics.
The report shows that the Board is well on top of the problems which affect the industry. It emphasises the need for sympathy and the human factor. That never was evident before. Neither sympathy nor the human factor was recognised under private enterprise. The men know these things. On page 51 we see the finest benefit that the miner has got under nationalisation. It refers to
1496
consultation machinery. Hon. Gentlemen tell us that a sort of Gestapo is at work intimidating the men. There is no such thing. The consultative committee is the finest thing ever introduced into the mining industry. Who knows that better than the old mining officials in this House? We used to have to go to the colliery offices to argue with bread and butter in the one hand and our job in the other. The miner can now go to the colliery offices, and standing on his legs can express his view. If hon. Gentlemen will examine the minutes of the consultative committees they will find that these committees have saved the industry thousands of pounds simply because of their interest in the organisation which is now running the industry.
On that same page of the Report, as instanced by my right hon. Friend, there are examples where the co-operative spirit between some squads of men and management has not been what it should. It is a big industry. Does not the consultative committee prove there was such a need for a committee, and, taking everything into consideration, any reasonable person will admit the committee plays a most important part. I know some of my people act a little hastily. I do not want to spoil the Minister's glorious day, because he has had a glorious day, but I might draw attention to the fact that certain members of the Coal Board structure have not that fine grasp of psychology that we would wish them to have. They might be very fine managers as far as the technical side of the industry is concerned, but to be a great mining engineer does not mean that a man is a first rate manager.
Managers have to have a grasp of psychology and know how to handle men. An old head cannot be put on young shoulders. I am happy to say that today many of our managers are young men brought from the ranks of the workers themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) expressed the hope that there would be some method of training managers from the ranks of the workers. We have been doing that for years and years in Scotland through the medium of our welfare, and the managers we are turning out are the finest in the industry. I could supply the names of the collieries which they are managing.

1497
The Coal Board must show a greater measure of sympathy and psychology in their approach to the closing of collieries, because people cannot be uprooted from one district and dumped down in another. That does not happen with the human element. That may be all right as far as machinery is concerned, but not men. In Scotland we have a dying county due to the mismanagement of private enterprise. I am happy to say that our local authorities, the Coal Board and the Scottish Special Housing Association are breaking all records in order to get the houses built to rehouse the people from the collieries in Lanarkshire which are being worked out. Only this week I paid the county council a special tribute for the way in which it is operating the new housing estate at Poltonhall to get our people transferred. The Scottish Special Housing Association has its uses.
The Scottish Division last year increased its output by 856,800 tons over 1947, an increase of 3.8 per cent. I have no doubt that that will be beaten by our men working on Saturdays. Some people talk about cutting prices. I can recall 1921, but I can go further back to 1911 when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was President of the Board of Trade. He mishandled the mining problem in that year and set the stage for 1912. We won in 1912. We fought for the first time as a union, the Miners' Federation, but we did not win in 1921 and 1926 when the axe was used. It was the Geddes Axe and what we got was a reduction of 3¾d. on split ton rates. It was the steam coal rate. That was the inducement we got to work harder and to cut prices. For two years it worked, but after that it did not work and it has not worked since. That is why in the mining areas there is such a high incidence of T.B.
One hon. Gentleman wanted to know why it was that there could not be a good supply of coal. Hon. Members opposite should know that capitalism first operated the nearest, easiest and best seams. Where is the great splint seam of the Lothians today? It is away. It has been worked because it was easy to work. Private enterprise worked it all right and paid their dividends and their bonuses. There is still some in Fife, but it is a new coalfield. The Lothians splint seams are finished and they are the oldest coalfields
1498
in the world. Nationalisation came along just in time to come to the rescue of the Fife coalfield before it was exhausted by private ownership. That is why it is in the direction of Fife that the Lanarkshire miners are looking.
The Coal Board in my opinion has several duties to perform. One is to see that men are attracted to the mining industry, and that can only be done by offering inducements. Previously I have pointed out in this House that if we want to attract men to hazardous industries we must offer them inducements to counterbalance the attractions of work in more congenial conditions. In the mining industry we have lower paid men. I want the Coal Board to take note of that fact. It is their duty to adjust the difference between higher-paid and the lower-paid men. In the Scottish Division, skilled workers are still getting approximately 3s. per shift less than their English brethren. I want the Minister to draw the attention of the National Coal Board to that fact. For more than 40 years I have argued that the Scottish miner is entitled to be paid as much as his English colleague, because he does the same work and he incurs the same risk. He is therefore entitled to be remunerated in the same fashion. I hope and trust that the Minister will draw the attention of the Coal Board to this matter.
The National Coal Board is doing the job for which it was created. The men have confidence in it. They know that they are far better off today than they were under private enterprise, and they know that if a Tory Government were to be returned to power in this country the mining industry would be finished for all time.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was very glad to hear the good Scottish accent of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde), and I agree with the tribute which he paid to the higher efficiency there is to be found in all directions North of the Border. In regard to the last part of his speech about the complete satisfaction that the miners have with the Board, I seem to recollect not one but several messages coming from the various mining districts throughout the country, claiming that there should be a complete reexamination of the whole organisation of

1499
the Board. They came from the miners' union. No doubt the hon. Member has forgotten them.
I had come to the Debate with a carefully prepared speech, ready to approach the matter with as unprejudiced a mind as I can produce—[Interruption.]—I said "as unprejudiced" as I could—and with a real desire to avoid party controversy. [Interruption.] Well, I can only ask the House to believe that I came with that intention. As the House knows, I come from one of the great coalmining areas in the country. I know how terribly politics have bedevilled this industry, and I was hoping that we might be able to avoid party controversy altogether tonight and to approach this matter from a rather different viewpoint. I hope I may succeed in doing so before I finish, but I am bound to tell the House that the speech of the Minister makes the maintenance of that attitude on my part exceedingly difficult.
I notice that the Minister has now left the House. He had not the courtesy to allow me to intervene when he was speaking and he has not had the courtesy to remain to hear what I have to say. The Minister's duty is to be on that Front Bench. Today he had a unique opportunity. As has been said, this is the first time Parliament has addressed itself to the consideration of the annual report of a great nationalised industry. Here was the occasion for the Minister in charge to set a precedent, a high standard of fair, unprejudiced, enlightened exposition of the policy for which he is responsible, and to set an example of a statesmanlike approach to a very large problem, which is of vital concern to the nation at large. I can only say that I think the whole House must have regretted how far the Minister fell short of attaining those various criteria. [Interruption.] Well, let hon. Members listen.
Instead of impartiality, the Minister expressed scarcely-veiled prejudice throughout his speech. Instead of frankness he displayed only a rather clever misrepresentation of the facts, and a withholding of facts. Instead of modesty he showed, particularly in his references to Sir Charles Reid, a smugness and conceit which I felt were a little nauseating. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to finish this passage of my
1500
speech. The attack on Sir Charles Reid, who is a Fifer and whom therefore I am here to defend, was surely one of the most unworthy ever made upon a man unable to defend himself in this House.
Here is a man with 50 years' experience in the mining industry, not only as a technician—the Minister limited his description to him as a technician—but as manager, and ultimately as general manager, of one of the great mining companies of the world. He was responsible not only for technique but, as the House knows and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) knows very well, for the whole range of operations of that great company—its finance, its organisation, its sales, its administration, its labour. He was managing, and looking after with very great success, 60,000 men.
Has the Minister of Fuel and Power ever been responsible even for six men? Has he ever produced any portion of the wealth of this country? Yet he has the temerity to speak of this fine man—[Interruption.] If the House will allow me to finish this part of my speech I will be able to give away to those who want to interrupt me. Here was a man who, when the Labour Party took over power and had no plan of their own for coal, as the late Minister of Fuel and Power admitted, and when the Labour Party needed help, was the one to whom that party turned. They applauded him, they praised him to the skies, they invited him to their councils, this same man that they are now turning upon.
This man, having served on the new Board as one of its first members, helped to create this whole system. Having found out that its plans were not good, in his opinion, he had the courage and the honesty to come out of the Board, and to say why he came out. It is that man, who has now lost his position, whom the Minister, from his special place of privilege, turns upon. It was a cowardly and unworthy attack upon a public servant and I am surprised that Members of the Labour Party who shouted him to the sky when he was helping them, should be laughing at this great man now. It is a shameful exhibition.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) has referred to Sir Charles Reid. I know Sir Charles Reid well. As a mining engineer he is one of the very finest, but politically Sir Charles Reid is appalling.
Mr. Murray: Would the hon. Member for East Fife kindly indicate which paragraph in the 1948 report refers to Sir Charles Reid?
Mr. Stewart: I am talking about the Minister's speech, with which this House is concerned.
Mr. Grey: The hon. Member for East Fife said he was going to deal with the situation with an unbiased mind and was going to make a speech which he had carefully prepared. Is he telling the House that the speech he is now making was prepared long before he came here?
Mr. Stewart: I am not delivering my carefully-prepared speech. I am delivering a new speech as a direct result of the speech made by the Minister. I find it very difficult in the light of that speech to approach the problem with an unprejudiced mind as I had hoped. [Interruption.] May I go on?
I thought it a piece of effrontery on the part of the Minister to rebuke the Opposition for the terms of their Amendment. What is the Amendment? It is that, having noted the report of the Board, the House:
"regrets that an abundant supply of coal of good quality and at a fair price has not been made available to the public and to industry."
Does anybody not regret that? Is there a nationalised industry using coal which has not said that it very much regrets it? Is there a housewife in the country or is there the wife of any Labour Member who does not regret that and has not repeatedly said that she regrets it? What hypocrisy it is that because we say what the whole country says we are told that it is an improper thing to say. I am glad that we have said it, and if called upon we shall vote in the Lobby to say it again. My name is not upon the Amendment, but if I were invited I would without hesitation put it there.
I now come to another part of the Minister's statement. He told us that he is directly responsible for three things among others, capital development,
1502
research and price costs. What did he say about any one of those things? Take capital development. There can be no doubt of the importance of capital development. There is probably not a mine in the country which does not need a good deal of development. We are seeing the development of great new mines in Fife. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde) was right about what is happening in Fife. Enormous sums have to be expended on capital development. Why did not the Minister on this most important occasion tell the nation what he is doing there? That is the important part of this problem which he ought to have explained to the nation, but we heard nothing about it.
Take research. Here is a matter for which the Minister says he is responsible. What are we doing about research? Sir Hubert Holdsworth has told us, and he should know. Sir Charles Reid has told us, and he also should know something about it. Even the hon. Member for West Fife agrees that he is an expert engineer. At Oxford the other day Sir Charles told us—nobody will quarrel with this:
"The system of working"—
I am talking about research—
"namely, long-wall advancing, which is almost in universal operation throughout the country, is extravagant in manpower due to the enormous amount of dead work required."
Every miner present will agree about this—
"It is terribly expensive in stores and materials and calls for the use of an excessive quantity of steel for the maintenance of roadways. It involves large numbers of men on each coalface with very uninteresting jobs, and leaves little room for the enterprise of the individual. One questions if we are ever likely to get contentment by a system so deficient in human interest."
Sir Charles added:
"The tragedy is that there is no real movement throughout the country"—
[Interruption.] I am making an important statement. I am quoting a most important passage from a speech delivered by Sir Charles Reid, and if it is wrong I want the Minister to tell me that it is wrong. I believe this to be the essence of the problem we are considering. He said:
"The tragedy is that there is no real movement throughout the country to alter the system, and little if any experimentation and research into what is the greatest mining problem of all."

1503
Does anybody challenge that? Nobody challenges it. Does the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) wish to challenge it?
Mr. Grey: The hon. Member referred to "long-wall working." Will he explain to the House what he means by that?
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Durham could do that very much better than I could do it. I think I know what I mean, but it would be ridiculous for me to describe it when he can do it so much better. I am quoting from one who is described as one of the greatest mining experts of our time. There is a piece of research which that expert believes to be the greatest mining problem of all, and yet not a word was said about it by the Minister. Sir Charles Reid said that unless something of that kind was done throughout, we could not maintain the industry as we required. That kind of research ought to be going on in every area in the country. The Minister has failed the House and the country in that he has not instructed the Board to carry through that essential research.
Price and cost is another of the items for which the Minister is responsible. The Minister has made a series of speeches in his time, and on 29th November last this is what he said about price and cost:
"It is not simply a matter of maximum production. It is production at minimum costs of the total quantity of coal required for home and export demands at prices which enable the Board to pay its way."
One might well add, "and which will enable the country to pay its way." If price is so very important in the Minister's mind, and that means costs, and he is accepting direct responsibility for it, why did he not tell us more about it today? That is another of the matters about which he has withheld essential facts.
I have only one other word to say now, as other hon. Members wish to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members on the Government side wish me to speak longer, I shall be very pleased to do so. During the Debate on the devaluation of the pound, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard). who was a miner, made a very remarkable statement. He used the startling phrase that the miners in Fife were saying—it is quite true—that there are too
1504
many white faces round about the pithead and were asking whether they were all necessary. I have my contacts with miners and have had for a very great number of years, and that is the miner's way of pointing to a vital weakness in the Coal Board's system. What is the weakness? It is—
Mr. Grey rose—
Mr. Stewart: I shall be very willing to give way if the hon. Member will just let me finish a sentence. Figures have been given today of the great increase in non-productive staff in the Coal Board. There are now far more non-productive bureaucrats—white-collared men—than ever there were before, and the miners know that that means something. How does it come about?
I have spoken before about the composition of the Board. I have criticised the fact that it was so largely functional. I recognise that changes have been made. I can only hope that by bringing in Sir Geoffrey Hayworth, and others with great experience in wide public enterprise concerns, some advantage may be gained. But I speak now about the levels I know better, and with some little knowledge of this matter I tell the House that the present system of divisional boards is ruinous to the success of the main Board and the coal industry. I will tell the House why that is. Take the members of these divisional boards in any part of the country. There is a production director. He is responsible for production in the areas. Has he any responsibility for the production in any one of the pits or in any one of the areas? No, Sir. Can he give any orders in any of the areas under his general charge? No, Sir, he is not responsible. The result is that the people in the areas and at the pits have no direct boss to whom they can turn for instructions, or decisions. It is that lack of personal responsibility which is undermining the morale of the managerial levels in the coal industry today.
I have heard it said time and again how important is the psychological factor in the mines. That is quite true, but at the time when the Minister has said it he has been thinking more particularly of the men. I would point out that we are not without our contacts, and that we meet men engaged in the industry at all levels. I can assure the Minister, although

1505
he may not know it, that there is a considerable amount of uneasiness in the minds of the managerial staff in all areas.
We know that already many have gone, and that some of the most prominent people in the industry have left the Coal Board. I solemnly warn the Minister that many more would leave if they could get another job, but the Government have made this industry a monopoly, and if a man leaves the Coal Board he has no job to go to, which is the crying danger. I can assure the House that unless some change is made to place personal responsibility on individual managers, directors or whatever we wish to call them, we shall never make a success of this business. Why does the Minister, who makes many plausible statements do nothing in practice? He stated, on 29th November that he did not think the way out was in dispute; it was the maximum delegation of responsibility. In spite of these fine words, it remains true that there is no one man in any individual area who has any substantial personal responsibility.
I can assure the House, from personal experience with a private enterprise organisation, just as large as this, that it can only do its job and make a success of it by giving its individual managers personal responsibility. I cannot stress too much the importance of that. It is vital that the miners should have someone to whom they can turn. They have no one man today, as they had before; even if they did not like him at least he was a boss who could make a decision. The structure of these central and divisional boards is wrong because they fail to recognise that elementary human factor, and until that is put right, we cannot succeed.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Murray: I am a little surprised at the speech we have just heard. I know from personal experience that there is a bigger opportunity today for discussion with the managers in the mining industry, through the consultative committees, than ever before. Consultations take place every week, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) should make such statements.
Mr. Stewart: I agree with what the hon. Member says, but I was referring
1506
to decisions. Let him deal with that question.
Mr. Murray: When they consult they arrive at decisions, which is the reason for the consultations. The consultations take place to remove disputes and troubles and to deal with all the things which happen during the week.
I was also surprised to hear what the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) had to say. I do not like to speak against him when he is not here, but that is not my fault. I like the right hon. Gentleman very much, but I thought he was in a worse position today than I have seen him in before. He spoke about the miners being out of touch with the National Coal Board. All I can tell him is that he is not in close touch with the miners, otherwise he would not make such statements. Out of 212 collieries in the County of Durham. 202 have already decided to work extra time to increase production, and the other 10 are being dealt with by the trade union representatives, who have not had a word of commendation for the work they are endeavouring to do. I had not intended saying these things, but when statements are made that are absolutely untrue they should not be allowed to go unchallenged.
I wish to speak for a short time about the report, because I understand this is what the Debate is all about. I have been disappointed with the Opposition. There seems to be no fire, or no coal, about them. The report shows that there has been increased production in all the British coalfields. Let the Tories oppose that if they like. The output per man-shift has gone up to the prewar level, which is what the Tories have been asking for, but we have heard nothing about that. We have only had the crumbs of commendation from the rich man's table.
We have had an average increase of 5.6 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole. In some districts it has been an increase of nearly 10 per cent., in others 9 per cent. and in others 8 per cent. and so on—it is all set out in the early part of the report. The output per man-shift has reached 3.2, and the absenteeism, which we have heard a lot about, has gone down by 88, although I am not saying that is enough. I have been telling the men in

1507
my district that it is not good enough, and that it is wrong for any man to lie idle if he is well and strong at this time of crisis.
I am not going to cry because of the report which has been presented, nor do I think there is any need to apologise for it. It is not perfect, but it is a splendid exposition of work done. The only thing I wish is that in this report, the increases in output and the reduction in absenteeism had been trebled, and then we would have been standing in an undoubtedly better position today. But the trend, and it is an important trend, is in the right direction. In every district we find increases—increases in production, increases in output per man-shift; and a reduction in absenteeism. Surely that is what the Tories have been asking for, and now they have got it they have not the courage to say, "Thank you" or, "That is a good job well done."
When I see in the report that in two years since nationalisation came into effect the speed of tunnelling in stone—which is a very difficult and skilful operation—has been doubled, surely that is important. In the same division short-term technical improvements have been carried out at eight collieries. There are 102 collieries in this particular district and it may be that all of them need short-term technical improvements. But surely this House and the country know that we cannot improve everything at one and the same time. Everyone knows of the limitation of men, materials and money, and yet we have these criticisms all the time. Here is a district that shows, with eight reorganised collieries, a 200 per cent. increase in production of coal or, in other words, 2,564,000 tons, and that is some increase. I would also remind this House that this same division produced in 1948, which is the year we are discussing, 37,469,000 tons of coal, a record figure for this particular division. That is not under private enterprise but under nationalisation.
The next thing I see in the report is that the mines are being steadily equipped with modern machinery, which is giving good results. That is something new for the industry. In one place in Durham we find a 10 per cent. increase in saleable coal which could not have been obtained except for the change-over from coal
1508
cutters to pneumatic picks. That is a step in the right direction.
Not only have we changes in that direction, but the men are now riding to the coal face where previously they had to walk. Many of them had to walk miles, carrying picks and drills and doubled up in a manner detrimental to production. Power loaders and conveyor belts have been installed, and whenever alterations have taken place whatever money has been spent has been a grand investment, because we have had a splendid return for it in increased production. That is what we all want.
In Durham we have a large and difficult coalfield. The House should remember that there are some coalfields where technical improvement and reorganisation is very difficult. In Durham, because it was laid out with very small pits, with small shafts and small roadways, it was possible to get an increased production at the coalface but impossible to get the coal out, because of narrow roadways and poor haulage conditions. It is impossible to have technical improvements and reorganisation in pits of that kind. Many of these pits are losing money, and will do so long as they are worked; but while we need the coal they must be worked. In December, 1948, the last month of the year, and including the Christmas holidays, we find that in Durham they produced more coal than in any other month during that particular year; and the number of persons employed was less. So I could go on right through this report, showing that whenever technical improvement or reorganisation has taken place there has been a magnificent return for the money spent.
I wish to refer to another problem which is very much in my mind, and which affects the mining industry in a great degree. It has been mentioned in this report and it was mentioned by the Minister when he talked about research. The miner does not usually ask for much. If he gets a fair deal he is well satisfied, and he is easily satisfied if the right approach is made to him. I ask that wherever possible the miner shall be given clean pure air free from dust. During 1948 a lot was done in this direction. I give credit to all engaged in the job of dust suppression. A total of 1,200,000 samples of roadway dust and 350,000 samples of mine air were analysed. In

1509
the South Wales area 47 miles of piping were installed, and the coalface needing treatment at that time was halved from 15 miles to about seven miles in an effort to prevent these dangers which always confront the miner. By the end of 1948 no less a number than 1,300 people were engaged in South Wales to combat the cruel diseases of pneumoconiosis and silicosis where they should be combated, and that is at the point of production, at the point of loading and transfer and wherever dust accumulates, even in the loading of ships. This matter ought to be tackled seriously.
For the sake of comparison I want co give some figures to show the difficulties and the great problems which face the industry. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde) mentioned "taking the lid off" and said that if people could only see the conditions under which the miners work they would look upon them in a different light. In the period 1937 to 1944—eight years—663 death certificates were granted. Between 1945 and 1948—four years—671 death certificates were granted. In other words, eight more death certificates were granted in the last four years than in the previous eight years. That is a very serious matter for the mining industry, for the Coal Board and for the country.
I will not give the figures of the applications made for disablement certificates because there were thousands of applications; I will give the exact number granted. Men have become fearfully afraid in the mining industry. Because of their fear they attend for examination in order to ascertain the condition of their health. Between 1937 and 1944, in those eight years, 4.474 disablement certificates were issued to miners. In the four years between 1945 and. 1948, 12,823 disablement certificates were granted. In other words, 8,349 more men were certified as disabled in some form or another as a result of these terrible diseases of silicosis or pneumoconiosis, caused by dust.
This does not happen only in South Wales. In another division there are 1,000 to 1,200 working faces. If each of these faces were surveyed 12 times a year, which is not very often, with a rapid sampling instrument, the number of samples in the laboratory would be no fewer than 400,000 a year. Again, if five thermal precipitator samples were taken
1510
each quarter at each face, there would be 20,000 of these slides to be examined annually. This is a most serious problem which confronts the mining industry and the National Coal Board.
I wish to put a question to the Minister. I understand that at the present time there are 1,500,000 feet of pipe on order for the purpose of laying to the coal faces to combat this disease. Can I have the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that this order will have the highest priority so that this work can proceed without any further delay? I must remind the House and the Minister that there are other parts of the mining areas that are being visited with this cruel disease. Last year, Durham lost 75 by death, and in the first six months of this year the loss was 64—only 11 less for half the year than last year's total. That is an indication of how this scourge is growing.
I remind the House also that in the work of combating this disease, Lord Hyndley and his colleagues, the Research Council and the Ministry of Fuel and Power have engaged specialists of very high standing in research and science to help them to prevent the spread of this cruel scourge. Surely, the old adage is still true that prevention is better than cure, and that it is far better to place a fence at the top of the hill than to have an ambulance ready at the bottom?
When I was in America recently I was taken round the premises of a large firm which employs a very large amount of labour, and the guide, a young chap, said to me, "In this firm, we believe that the individual worker is our greatest asset, and that, as such, we must look after him first." How true that is in every industry in the world, not only in America. I am indeed glad today that the National Coal Board have said:
"The Board will not be satisfied until the disease is completely under control."
I am glad to read these words in that report, because they mean so much to the men in the mines and to the women—the women who have many times watched these men silently and slowly dying, having given up their pleasures and comforts, women who after going to visit them in hospital have seen them slowly pass on to another world. I would say to Lord Hyndley and his colleagues with all the sincerity I possess "All strength to your elbow, whether it be in

1511
the field of research or in the Ministry of Fuel and Power or wherever it may be." I would say further "God bless your efforts." The work you are doing is a great work.
Let the Tories shout about balance sheets and profits, if they like. I know that profits are necessary. I am the last man in the world to decry profits; they are essential, and we cannot do without them in industry, whether nationalised or private. But nothing in the world is more important to a man or woman than health, and this great work must go on. The battlecry must be sounded, and fresh air must be given to the miners, or we shall have no miners at all. Whatever may be needed in the way of materials and money must be found, including, if possible, machines that can produce coal without creating dust—and that is a problem for the mining engineer. When the day arrives when this dust problem has been conquered, the miners of this country will arise and call blessed all those who have persisted in this work.
8.45 p.m.
Colonel Clarke: With the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) I find myself in complete agreement, but with the earlier part, in which he failed to find why our party was not wholly in favour of the Coal Board and wholly enthusiastic of what has been done, I am in almost complete disagreement. I wish I had time to dispute it line by line, but in seven minutes I have to try to make a speech which was designed to fill considerably more space, and, therefore. I must leave that for another time.
This report deserves considerable respect for its form, its arrangement and for the amount of information, particularly statistical, contained in it. Hon. Members of the Opposition who fought both in Committee and on the Report stage to get that information made available can be really very satisfied with the results they have achieved. But there are still vast improvements which could be made. Looking at the outside of the report, I notice that the Royal Arms are omitted. I presume this was in order, as the National Coal Board is not State controlled, but is an independent business. But why did not they put in instead the
1512
arms of the National Coal Board? They have some nice new arms, and the motto—"E tenebras lux"—is extremely helpful when trying to elucidate some of the darker passages of the book. It might also comfort one for the fact that one has to pay 2s. more for this volume than for last year's.
But when we come to the inside of the report, I feel like my hon. Friend that the main complaint one has against it is of over-complacency. I wish to take as an example the particular paragraph that refers to the export trade and the progress made by the export trade during the year. I have to declare my usual interest. I am a director of a company which though not directly concerned in export has a subsidiary concerned with it. The report says that
"Month by month shipments were increased until by the end of the year an annual rate of nearly 20 million tons was reached. This was not yet comparable to the 52 million tons shipped in 1937, but was a vigorous start."
"By December, 1948, Britain were shipping more coal to Europe than America was."
What is the real position? Exports at the end of that year were at a rate of less than one-third of pre-war, and the present anticipated export of 19 million tons is less than two-fifths of the pre-war figure. By December, 1948, the Polish export figure had increased from 12 million tons in 1938 to 26 million tons. I know there is a slight adjustment to be made in those figures for the coal from the German Silesian mines, but it is not very substantial. Again, America sent coal to Europe only in an emergency before the war, but now they are still sending it at the rate of 10 million tons. Actually, the story of the post-war export trade is a tragedy, the story of a great opportunity lost. Even as late as January, 1947, I believe it might have been possible not only to regain our 1939 market, but also a number of others that were lost between 1914 and 1939 if only the necessary coal had been forthcoming.
But even with this severely limited supply available a good deal more could have been done. I believe that if a certain amount of really good coal had been allowed to be exported, if only as a token of what we would do if the export increased, it might have helped. Had we avoided exporting what was almost rubbish and had we resisted the tendency to exploit our unique position as the one

1513
great European coalfield not devastated by the war, it would have helped a good deal. I purposely say "exploited" because I am not one of those who believe that we need necessarily sell to the foreigner at the same price as we do to our own people. In their hearts I do not think they expect it, and I realise, of course, that a good deal of the criticism is due to the fact that the coal is being sold nationally so that we get contact between the two nations on the highest level instead of between the traders of the two nations.
That is a very good argument for countinuing to trade by private enterprise in the foreign markets. Influenced by the parlous state of their finances, the Coal Board made really no effort to take a long-term business view. They have been living for the moment and the damage which has been done is, in my opinion, still largely concealed. The European export market is not yet saturated, except perhaps for coke, and the real fighting trade has not begun. When it begins we shall see the ground we have lost.
I have one other comment to make and it is on the statement, about the export trade, that very few complaints were made by foreign buyers about the coal they received during the year. That is only a half-truth. There may not have been many complaints about the coal they received, but there were bitter complaints about the coal they did not receive. It is true that the coal came up to the specifications given in the tenders, but the tenders were perhaps, taking ash for example, for coal containing 12 to 14 per cent of ash. It did contain that amount, but that is not what the receiver wanted. What he wanted was coal with 8 to 10 per cent. ash. There were complaints about that. I think the statement that there were no complaints was definitely a half-truth.
I do not think the National Coal Board should be asked to carry all the blame for this failure. They must carry the blame for failure in production, but I do not blame them so much for their failure to act as responsible and experienced businessmen. I think they were hampered at every turn by the Board of Trade who entangled themselves in a great mass of bulk buying and bulk selling, and bilateral trade agreements and I think that the main responsibility for
1514
making this business so difficult lies with the Board of Trade.
The time at my disposal has ended and I finish by asking the Parliamentary Secretary one question which I intended to ask earlier. I believe that one of the most valuable things that could be done in some of the older coalfields is to find methods where, by blending, some of the coals that are not so much wanted at the present time could be made more valuable by bringing them up to the standards where they could be carbonised. I know that research is going on and that work has been done in the North-Eastern Division in producing coke by these means, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House something of the latest progress which has been made in that work.
8.57 p.m.
Miss Herbison: When the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was speaking, had he not been complacent, I should have felt rather sorry for him. It seemed to me that here was a man, opening a Debate for the Opposition, knowing little of the background of the subject and evidently having taken very little pains to find out what this report really dealt with. He made very wild statements and yet he adduced no evidence in support of them. He spoke about cynicism among the workers and about distrust among the management. The facts do not prove that at all, particularly to those who come from mining districts.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about distrust in the management who were afraid to speak, I expect because they were afraid that the National Coal Board might do something evil to them; but if we go to any rank above the miner in the coal mining industry today we find that since nationalisation many of those categories of workers have been threatening to take strike action, whereas when they worked for private owners in this industry they would not have dared to say a word. Indeed, those people today find that they have far more freedom to disclose their grievances than they ever had under private enterprise in this industry.
Then he said, when he was giving an example of one manager who had been dismissed a month before his 10 years, that what the National Coal Board was

1515
doing was to try to reduce everybody's wages and everybody's conditions. Well, again, let us look at the facts of the situation—look where the miners are today in the industrial wage level and compare that with where they were under private ownership; we see their improved level. If we look at the clerical workers of the National Coal Board, at where they are today and at where they were before the Board took over, we see that, so far from trying to reduce everybody, the Board has improved conditions. We have that kind of inaccurate criticism in all sorts of directions from the Opposition. An attempt has been made by this National Coal Board to give justice to all its workers, no matter in what category they are.
The right hon. Gentleman also made a great song about lowering the price of coal, and challenged the National Coal Board because in this report it said that it wanted to curb the price. He said it ought to have been "lower" the price. He did not give us any suggestion how that price might be lowered. Indeed, we have not had one suggestion today of how to lower the present price of coal, and we should be very glad to have one, because we realise that, for the whole economy of this nation, we want to produce coal as cheaply as ever we can, provided at the same time that our miners, and all those who work for the National Coal Board, have a fair return for their work. Perhaps under private enterprise there was another way of doing it. From 1942 until 1946 the coal industry of this country received £27,500,000 in subsidies, every penny of that coming out of the taxpayers' pockets. That is very different from the posters we see all over the country about the nationalised industries.
The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) spoke about the speech that the Minister made at Porthcawl, and he finished by saying that what we all should want is a pound's worth of work for a pound. Of course, that is what we want today. That is what the men under the National Coal Board are giving today. Previously it was a pound's worth of work for sometimes as little as 5s. in return for it.
There are many points I should like to have raised on this report. I welcome
1516
greatly the part that deals with education. Here we are finding today that the young entrants into the industry work for four days and are freed completely on the fifth day so that they may receive their technical and theoretical training for this industry. That is very different indeed from what happened previously, when those boys sometimes worked six days a week in the pit and had to travel long distances at night if they wanted to get this theoretical and technical training. They realise the growing need in this industry for technical efficiency. Today, under the National Coal Board, young men are going to the university and having their fees and all their expenses and a very good maintenance allowance paid to them. In other words, every chance is being given in this industry today to the lad who goes in at 15 if he has the will and the ability to get right to the very top.
In welfare, before the National Coal Board took over, we received 1d. on every ton of coal. It will be seen from this report that now 3d. is being paid. Add to that what is being spent on canteens and the upkeep of pithead baths, at the rate of 1½d. a ton, and the total is 4½d. a ton instead of a 1d.
I agreed entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) when he said how important the individual man is. I am glad he dealt fully with this question of pneumoconiosis. Not only in South Wales but in other parts of the country we have this dreadful scourge. I know from my association with the National Joint Welfare Council how excellent is the work that is being done on this disease. I also welcome the great amount of research that is being done by the Coal Board in dust suppression. I still am not satisfied, and I put this to the Minister—although it may be a matter for the Minister of Health—that, so far as I am aware, very little has been done for the treatment of miners when they have this disease. I know that research is being carried out—I understand that clearly—but there is too little being done in the treatment of this disease once a man has it.
The only other point on which I want to touch is absenteeism. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House have been able to give any of the

1517
real reasons for absenteeism. It is true that before the war it was lower because men then had to work very hard six and seven days a week to get the bare necessities of life when they were engaged in this industry. I realise that even today, when I know how much the men have got in improved conditions through the Coal Board, that a week's holiday, and the other odd days which they get—and I am glad that they get them—are not sufficient. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde) was correct when he said it would be a good thing if we could lift the lid off a pit and let others see the conditions under which miners work—they would then not be surprised that when he gets a week's holiday, he decides to take a few more days with his family at the seaside.
I do not in any way condone absenteeism. In my own district, when talking to the miners, I stress just as the Minister did—and he was jeered at for it by the Opposition—that our nation today is dependent upon the miners as never before. We have, while taking that view, to find what is the proper way to overcome absenteeism. When I listened to some of the suggestions, I wondered what the rate of absenteeism of Members in this House and how it was compared with absenteeism in the mines.
I conclude by saying that we are not uncritical of the National Coal Board, and I might have raised a few points if I had had time, but we on this side are convinced that in a very short time the National Coal Board has indeed worked wonders. With the constructive criticism which it gets from the unions, the men, and the consultative committees. I have no fears but that it will work further wonders in the future.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Raikes: I am glad, first of all, to thank the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) for her courtesy in curtailing her remarks and enabling me to make the final speech on this side of the House at a reasonable hour. I think that it is a matter of regret to all of us in this House that in these very interesting mining debates so many speeches have to be curtailed and often what would be valuable speeches are actually never made.
1518
I am glad tonight that we have had two or three new entrants into a mining debate. On this side of the House, we have had an extremely valuable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who raised on the timber question a matter which, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary and the National Coal Board will find well worth examining with that care which useful suggestions ought always to receive. We have also had the pleasant opportunity of a speech from the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) on the subject of coal. On the other side of the House, I was very interested to hear the most moderate and able speech made by the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) who, I think, was speaking for the first time in a coal debate.
I realise perfectly well that in a Debate of this character it is the duty of all sides to try to make criticisms that are at any rate constructive. I shall have to deal with the Minister's speech to some extent, and while I do not cavil at anything he actually said I thought that certain of his omissions made his picture of the working of the report for 1948 rather fallacious and, if I may say so, somewhat partial. But I shall deal with those matters point by point as they arise.
Nationalisation is now a fact, and I say quite frankly, speaking from this side of the House, that it is the duty of all sides to try to make the National Coal Board work, and to work effectively. I do not intend to make a speech dealing with the old arguments for or against nationalisation. I intend to face the situation as it in fact stands. It seems to me that there are three matters we have to look at before we consider whether any sweeping changes should be made in the present set-up: first, whether output and quality are at the present time satisfactory, looking at the background, secondly, whether the spirit in industry under the Coal Board at the present time is satisfactory; and thirdly, whether the cost position is satisfactory. I shall submit that in all those three cases the report itself, although a little disguised, is bound to admit that those things are not working with the degree of satisfaction that was certainly expected at the time the coal industry was nationalised.
It is not the task of anybody speaking from this side of the House to make any

1519
assault upon the miners. I say quite frankly that the miners have got a difficult and a dirty job in the pits. They always look rather coldly—and I do not blame them—at exhortations coming from anybody, whatever their political colour may be, who has not had experience of working in the pits. I confess that although we would all admit that absenteeism is too high—and the Minister has admitted that—a degree of that height of absenteeism may be due to the fact that in certain quarters the miners are not getting quite that leadership which good troops always require if they are to produce of their best. Speaking from the Opposition side, I should like to pay one tribute, and that is to those men, particularly amongst the older miners, who have given their lives to that industry in good times and in bad, in war and in peace, who have carried on a hard and difficult job with a quiet tenacity. The nation owes a great deal to them.
I do not propose to attack the Chairman of the National Coal Board. Lord Hyndley has an incredibly difficult task as the head of a vast industrial empire. Where I think the original criticism lies is in this: that when the Coal Board was first set up, the nine men who were given the task of ruling this vast industrial empire had very, very little direction from the Government of the day. The reason for that was made very plain by the former Minister of Fuel and Power, now the Secretary of State for War, when he admitted with great frankness—and frankness is the only merit I can give to it—that the Government had not really worked out what the problems of the nationalisation of the coal industry were at the time they nationalised it. The result was that there was set up a board which was bound to improvise, which had no real plan made for it by this Government of planners who might have been expected to plan. I am not surprised that such improvisation was bound to lead to a certain amount of top heavy bureaucracy.
Whenever we are talking about industry the Government use the year 1938 as their industrial comparison with today. We have been told, with some pride, that industry as a whole has an index figure today of 131. I realise that the mining industry has certain problems to face which do not exist in other industries
1520
but, nevertheless, we have to consider to some extent the position as it was 10 years ago. If I make comments on it I hope Members opposite will not say that I am stating an anti-nationalisation versus nationalisation argument. If I mention figures I shall be considering what the position of the industry is now, and what progress, or otherwise, has been made in the past 10 years, which is used as a criterion when we are discussing any other industry.
Since 1938, we know that there have been fewer men in the pits and that there has been an increase in mechanisation from 59 to 75 per cent. The Minister said that the greater part of this increase in mechanisation took place between 1939 and 1945, and that the production figures in 1945, 1946 and 1947 were poor. But he knows as well as I do that towards the end of the war the reduced number of men were tired, and that when the use of pit machinery is decided upon it takes time to get it effectively into pits and to train men to use it as effectively as it should be used. The admission of the Minister that the biggest part of the mechanisation was carried out between 1939 and 1945 is a strong argument for saying that by 1948 we ought to have been beginning to see the fruits of that mechanisation during those years.
The report emphasises the question of output per man-shift, but output per man-year is hardly mentioned at all. The Minister dealt almost entirely with the increased output per man-shift. In an intervention he said he had explained that he was dealing with production per man-shift, that the question of absenteeism and fewer shifts came in, and that he had therefore given the whole picture. How could any person, not knowing anything beyond the Minister's speech, have imagined from it what are the figures of average production per man-year in the pits between 1938 and 1948? The picture we were given was, "After all, you have to make some allowance for absenteeism and fewer shifts."
One of our great problems is that we produced in 1948, 196½ million tons of deep-mined coal as against 227 million tons in 1938. The output per man-year in 1938 was 290 tons; the output per man-year in 1948 was 271 tons in spite of the increased mechanisation. I do not

1521
think I can be accused of unfairness in saying that, in considering circumstances like these, we must look with a certain anxiety to the difference of output per man-year. I would also remind the Minister of Fuel and Power that in the report of the Committee on Industrial Productivity it was laid down that they felt that the real criterion, which they were using in that particular report was man-year rather than man-hour.
Mr. Tom Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the difference between the distance in 1938 from the coal face to the pit bottom and the difference between the two in 1948. In some of our mines the face is further away now and, therefore, the men have further to walk and the coal has to be brought a much greater distance.
Mr. Raikes: It is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to make and I am much obliged to him. My comment on that would be that the general view of expert mining engineers is that the difference in the distance to the coal face as between 1948 and 1938, taking the pits as a whole, is not of such a degree as to make a great deal of difference in the output. I am expressing the general view of mining experts, of whom I do not pretend to be one.
We come to the next point, which is, how far did 1948 provide satisfactory figures? The right hon. Gentleman says that he thought the 1948 figures were satisfactory in so far as they compared with 1947. It is quite clear that that was so only in relation to that comparison. It is also true that in 1948—and I am going to take the Minister in a moment to 1949—the industry failed to reach what was laid down as a minimum target for that year. The minimum laid down in the Economic Survey was 200 million tons. My right hon. Friend referred to Lord Hyndley's statement in the course of that year, which I should like to underline. It was:
"If we fail to produce the minimum of 200 million tons in 1948 we, as an industry, will have to answer to the country and to our conscience."
In fact, as we know, they were 3½ million tons below that target.
Then the Minister went on to 1949, and rightly so, because I think, dealing with a report of this character, it is as
1522
well to carry all the implications. In 1949 the Minister omitted something very substantial. He gave the figure of the Economic Survey for what should be the production of deep-mine coal for 1949. I think the figure was anything between 202 million tons to 207 million tons. He did not give the figures put down as the Coal Board forecast and also the forecast of our commitments under the Marshall plan. They were the same. The Coal Board forecast for 1949 was 210 million tons and the Marshall Aid commitment was 210 million tons.
We know perfectly well today that there is not an earthly chance of getting near that figure. We welcome the additional spurt which, of course, is made at this time of the year, but if we reach 202 or 203 million tons I think that is the most that is physically possible at this stage of the year. That means that we shall be 7 million tons below the forecast of the National Coal Board. Lord Hyndley, realising in the middle of July that he was not going to get his target came forward and said, "We must make 207 million tons our target." Now we get to 203 million as the most we shall reach. I submit on that aspect of production, looking at the position as it was 10 years ago, that all the forecasts made in 1948 and 1949 by responsible persons justify me in saying that the National Coal Board has not provided a satisfactory output of coal, according to their own forecasts.
On quality, I would only say in passing that we all know that the quality of coal has deteriorated since before the war, but I do not want to make an unfair point about that. I would remind the House that even if we produced 200 million tons, to take a rough figure, considering the increased dirt, it would not be as good in useful coal as 200 million tons would have been in the days before the war. This is the kind of figure that we have to bear in mind as responsible persons, when we are looking at the future of the coal industry.
On the question of costs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) gave a number of substantial and important figures. I would remind the House of one or two other points about costs. Taking, not 1939 but the beginning of 1947 when the

1523
National Coal Board took over, we can see that from 1st January, 1947, to 30th June, 1949, there has been an increase of 9s. 4d. a ton in costs. That is an increase of 26 per cent., yet wages only took up 15.7 per cent. of that increase. That means that, since the National Coal Board took over, there has been an increase in the cost of administration of no less than 10 per cent.
When one glances at further figures and sees a 21 per cent. increase in the administration of non-industrial staff since the end of 1946, an increase of salaries in 1947 of £13 million and in 1948 of nearly £17 million, and a big increase in administration expenses for colliery activities alone, one realises that costs are going up on the managerial side. I have heard it said on very good authority that the whole cost of management and administration amounts to about 3s. 6d. a ton, which is a big figure.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) said in his extremely interesting speech, 48s. 5½d., the price paid at the pithead now for coal, is the highest price ever known. We cannot afford to allow prices to run up if we are to hold our own in the export market in the years ahead. At the present time we are charging higher prices in the export market than in the home market, and unless prices fall we shall find that instead of being the lifeblood of industry the coal industry will be a check upon every other industry. Therefore it is vital that we should increase production for export and for other markets. When the most we can have said by the Coal Board in its annual report is that it hopes to curb costs, I confess that I feel that the Coal Board is adopting a spirit of resignation rather than a spirit of vigour and hope.
I shall not at this stage say anything on the question of frustration except that everyone knows that we have in many cases managers who are over-burdened with the tilling of forms. That cannot be denied on the other side of the House; it has been half admitted by the Minister in one of his statements. In many cases managers are inclined to pass the responsibility on from the pit to the sub-area, from the sub-area to the area and so on upstairs via the divisional board. I will give an example. I was talking the other
1524
day to a sub-area manager whom I had known for years. I said, "How are you doing now?" There was no politics in this. He said, "I am quite comfortable. I am paid very well by the Coal Board, but, of course, now I never take a decision; I always pass it on to somebody else." I am sure that spirit exists, and I am certain beyond doubt that remote control is bad not only as affecting the management but also as affecting the men. If the managements are passing the buck and not making decisions, they will never get the best return from the men working under them.
I would say that the Minister realised that all was not well in the Coal Board when he set up the Burrow Committee. I presume that it was set up for a useful purpose, whether it achieved one or not. I and my hon. Friends regret that the evidence in its report was not made public and that it was purely a departmental report. Looking at the structure of the Coal Board today, I believe that the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde, not for the first time in this House, on decentralisation have grown in strength since the 1948 report came out; and also the observations which have been made by Sir Charles Reid have grown in strength.
It is too much to ask any Government to take a cast-iron rigid scheme produced by somebody else, but the time has come when we ought to go beyond a departmental inquiry and when we require an independent inquiry, taking evidence in public of businessmen outside the Coal Board, to look at the structure and to report upon it. Costs are high, as has been shown, output is lagging behind what output could be, and a degree of frustration undoubtedly exists. Unless some step like that is taken, the alternative is this.
The National Coal Board has resigned itself to move rather gradually forward expecting to miss every target which it sets for production. Whether it expects to miss them or not, it does miss. Beyond that, if it feels that somehow or other it can get up perhaps another 6 million tons a year, it will be years before we get near the figures of before the war, and by the time we do get those figures it may be quite impossible to obtain what we require in the way of export trade,

1525
which is now becoming more and more difficult as the markets turn over. It is the difference between drifting along or giving a new impetus to industry. I believe that an independent tribunal could give that impetus and that we could through decentralisation cut out many of those things which are hampering the Coal Board at present. My greatest criticism of the Government is that, as in other matters, they are lacking in urgency in what is an urgent and vital question.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, at the end, to add:
"but regrets that an abundant supply of coal of good quality and at a fair price has not been made available to the public and to industry."
Sir Arnold Gridley: I beg to second the Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I must confess to a feeling of great disappointment at the way in which this Debate has gone—[Interruption.] It is all right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to start jeering; most of them have not been in the Chamber all day. It was not my hon. Friends who were jeering, and I happen to have been sitting here all day listening to the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Therefore I say that I must confess to a feeling of disappointment at the way in which this Debate has gone. Speaking as a parliamentarian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, as one who in these last four years has come to love and respect this House and know that it can rise to great occasions, I thought that on this occasion, when for the first time in our history Parliament has had the opportunity of dealing with the affairs of a publicly-owned enterprise, we should deal with it, as I thought the Minister put it so well, in the way that shareholders might deal with the affairs of a company at their meeting—
Mr. Pickthorn: The Minister did not put it so well—that was in the "Financial Times."
Mr. Robens: I thought that the Minister made a statement that was moderate and not partisan in any way, and set a very fine note for what might have been a good debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member
1526
for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) did not take that cue. Indeed, apart from the speech of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes), there has been very little constructive criticism from the other side of the House. There has been plenty of criticism. Indeed, hon. Members opposite are carrying on using the Coal Board as a political stick to beat the Government. I thought we had finished with the political issue of whether the coal industry should be nationalised or not. Hon. Members opposite have said that they would not de-nationalise the coal industry, so surely it is our duty, as Members of this House, to make the Coal Board work, and to come to this House with constructive proposals as to where it is wrong, if it is wrong, and how we should set about putting it right.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Wavertree said, that the important things are output and quality. In these important years emerging from the war we cannot divorce those things. It is impossible to divorce output from quality. He knows, as everyone who has any association at all with coal mining knows, that if we get on at great speed with mechanising the mines at the coalface, unless at the same time we build washeries and treatment plants in order to treat the coal with the same speed as it is produced, obviously quality suffers; but all the same, output is the most important. In relation to quality, all is being done that can be done to get the necessary treatment plant erected so that the quality may be steadily improved.
In regard to blending, which was a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), as the report indicates a great deal of research is being done in order that we shall have the qualities which the consumers want. That is not done in a day. Thousands of samples from mines all over the country have to be taken and analysed. The blends have to be checked over in the laboratories in order to provide the qualities that consumers want. Much on this work is being done. If hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it ought to be got on with much more quickly, they will have to demonstrate how that could be done. The fact is that I believe that the Coal Board, as the report shows, are doing a great deal and are moving along quickly in relation to

1527
the problem of quality, which is tied up with the question of output.
The hon. Member for Wavertree referred to the increase in administrative expenses. That is true. The clerks in the industry now get more wages than they received before; but the right hon. Member for Southport was complaining that they were badly paid. The Opposition cannot complain at one time that the clerical workers are badly paid, and at another, when the clerical workers receive an increase in pay, complain if administrative costs go up. In point of fact, that is what has happened. What do the expenses of the divisions and the National Coal Board represent? They represent 0.7 per cent. of the total expenditure of the Coal Board. That is an infinitesimal amount when compared with the large expenditure that is necessary in this great industry.
The fact is that this country will emerge from the present period of difficulty into prosperity according to whether this great industry of ours is successful or not. If this industry fails, there is no hope for any of us in whatever part of the House we sit. It is because we have recognised that through the years since nationalisation took place that we were so anxious today that we should have the best type of Debate. Hon. Members are welcome to make criticisms if they wish, but they should be constructive. The right hon. Member for Southport said that one of the advantages of this Debate was that the coal industry was a monopoly—
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I said nothing of the sort.
Mr. Robens: If the right hon. Gentleman looks in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that he did say that it was an advantage to have this Debate because the coal industry was a monopoly.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: No. I said that it was a necessity to have this Debate because the coal industry was a monopoly.
Mr. Robens: That is better still. I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It was because the coal industry is a monopoly that it is necessary that we should have a Debate. It is a great pity that all the other monopolies in the country are not
1528
subject to the same kind of Debate. It would have been most interesting if that great monopoly which has occupied the newspapers during the last few days had been subject to the kind of public accountability which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nuts."] Even on the question of nuts there will be public accountability, which is more than can be said for Rank's films.
The right hon. Gentleman properly referred to the mounting costs of the industry. To what are the rising costs due? Eighty-four per cent. of the costs are caused by labour and materials. The Coal Board have little or no control over the materials they buy. Over wages they have control. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest, therefore, that to reduce costs we should slash the wages of the miners?
Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have never suggested that.
Mr. Robens: What we have decided, of course, and what the National Coal Board have done, is not to slash the wages of the miners, but to treble them over the level of the pre-war years. If they had not done this, and if they had not spent the enormous amount of money which they have spent—in the first year, it was something like £63 million on the five-day week, additional wages, making the pithead baths free and things of that character—what would have happened? There would have continued the drift away from the pits, resulting in less manpower than in 1945, and the cost of coal would not be where it is now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen shake their heads, but it seems to me to be a logical argument. We raise costs considerably unless we get the men to bring up the coal, and we shall never get the men to bring up the coal unless we give them decent wages and conditions. That is something to the credit of the National Coal Board.
It is assumed that coal prices are the only prices which have been raised, but that is not so. The whole level of prices in recent years, as a direct result of the war, has been increasing, not only in this country, but throughout the world. If we look at farm prices in this country and take the year 1938 to represent the index figure of 100, the index figure of

1529
farm products is now 258. Coal prices are 248, so that the increase in coal prices is not the only instance of increases in price.
Nor have these increases in price taken place solely since the National Coal Board took over. Let us have a look at them. In 1938, the costs of production were 16s. 1d. per ton commercially disposable, and in 1946 they were 35s. 10d., an increase of 19s. 9d. per ton—and not under nationalisation. Since nationalisation, the cost of production has gone up to 45s. 6½d. per ton, making an increase of 8s. 6½d. per ton saleable. Thus, whereas in pre-nationalisation days from 1938 we had a rise in costs of 19s. 9d. per ton after nationalisation the increase has been only 8s. 6½d. per ton, and of that 8s. 6½d., 7s. 4d. is reflected in the wages of the miners. This is nothing of which the Coal Board need be ashamed, nor is it anything about which hon. Gentlemen opposite need boast when they try to make out that these high costs are something peculiar to the coal industry and not associated with any of the interests with which they and their friends are connected.
The right hon. Member for Southport tried to tell the House that industrial relations in the industry are awfully bad. He has been answered by many of my hon. Friends. I deny right away that the relations in this industry are bad. They are extremely good, but I will tell the House—and it is useful to make some comparisons sometimes—that if we take the three years after the 1914–18 war—[HON. MEMBERS "No."] We are now coming to what hon Members opposite do not like and cannot take, but I do not propose to skip it; I propose to give it. In the three years after the 1914–18 war, which are reasonably comparable with the three years after the last war, the number of days lost through industrial disputes in the mining industry reached a total of 97,673,000. In the three years 1946–47–48, the number of days lost through industrial disputes was 1,798,000.
I say that that is the real answer when hon. Gentlemen opposite try to suggest that since nationalisation industrial relations have been very much worse than in the old days when private enterprise had control. Far from these relations
1530
being bedevilled, what is the situation? With a five-day week in the industry, these men have for some time past given up their five-day week and been prepared to work extended hours. The consultative machinery has been used very considerably. One of the reasons disputes are so small in number is because men and managements are getting together.
Consultation is an art that is not easily acquired. There are all sorts of difficulties that have to be put on one side. There is the problem of the manager who sometimes resents having to discuss with his men things relating to his pit, and there is sometimes the question of men who resent making a contribution in certain cases even to their own pit. But the fact is that the recent production drive has been conducted by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
With regard to extra hours worked, if we take these last four weeks we find that 367 pits agreed to Saturday work, which is an improvement on the comparable four weeks of last year, when only 324 worked on Saturday. Last Saturday, 5th November, 496 pits were working on Saturdays and 122 pits were working an additional half-hour on the shift. I suggest that these men have been prepared to do that because of the change in the industry and that they would not have been so easily prepared to do it under certain circumstances that existed before.
My next point is the kind of thing about which I complain. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the right hon. Member for Southport made the claim that the National Coal Board treated its people very badly. I think he said that there was an official who, had he served one more month, would then have completed 10 years' service and would have been eligible for a pension, but that in point of fact this hard-hearted Board dismissed him within a month of the 10 years which would have enabled him to qualify for the pension.
I asked the officials of the Ministry if they could trace from the very poor information available something about this particular case, because I did not believe that it could be true. What are the facts? The man referred to had only done six and a half years' service in the coal industry since 1935. The Board have no power

1531
at all to pay pensions unless the people concerned have had 10 years' service in the industry. Furthermore, if a man feels that he has a grievance, then he has the right of appeal to a referee. Did one get that under private enterprise? Of course not. The fact is that that tiny little thing is brought forward, when we are debating this great industry, in order to entertain this House and to try to score some political point.
The number of pits that have been closed without any real difficulty and without the social problems that arose out of closures in the old days has been due to what? To the fact that men and managements have got together, have talked about the closures and made all arrangements, and because the Board had a redundancy scheme that took care of some of those people who could not be re-employed. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the industrial relations are bedevilled, and that there is all this frustration. It is wrong to say that men are not working in harmony with managements.
It is perfectly true that there are obvious difficulties, and I know of no industry where, even with the most perfect organisation and the finest type of management, there is not something cropping up at one time or another which ought to have been avoided; but by and large the operations of this industry, and the relations of the men in it, are to be commended rather than decried, as they have been today.
I cannot say much about colliery managers in regard to this terrible feeling of frustration. What a word to use about men who manage pits. It really surprises me, because I should have thought that a man who was qualified to manage a pit was someone who could stand up for himself. I should have thought that the manager of a pit who felt frustrated because of this awful demon that was over him would have approached his colliery managers' association and they would have gone to the divisional board and said, "Look, we colliery managers are not standing for this any longer." Have they done so? They are not unimportant people in the industry, and if there were this feeling of frustration, if they felt unable to do their jobs, surely there would have been an approach through the normal channels of consultation,
1532
which are available to them just as they are for the workmen, in order to deal with the problem. So much for what the right hon. Gentleman said about labour relations in the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the Burrows Report and the hon. Member for Wavertree said that my right hon. Friend had set up the Burrows Committee. Nothing of the kind. The Coal Board thought it would be a good thing if they invited outside persons to have a look at their organisation and to give them some advice and criticism. Accordingly, the Burrows Committee was set up by the Coal Board to look into their affairs in just the same way as any business firm might either bring in a consultant or depute one of the members of its board to do a certain investigation. How that committee did its job was up to the committee. It did not concern my right hon. Friend; it concerned the National Coal Board, and the recommendations were published, and hon. Members know what they were.
It has been suggested that Sir Charles Reid has suddenly lost the esteem which he earned by the Reid Report, and the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) spent a good deal of time on the subject. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend was absent, for he would have enjoyed the spectacle of the hon. Member almost having an apoplectic fit in his endeavour to help Sir Charles Reid back into the public esteem from which, the hon. Member said quite wrongly, my right hon. Friend had pushed him. The fact is that my right hon. Friend did not decry Sir Charles Reid. In fact, he said he was a first-class engineer. What he said was that that was a very different thing from saying that Sir Charles was the best administrator in the country. There was nothing derogatory said about Sir Charles Reid; from this side of the House we have all paid our tributes to him as a first-class mining engineer, and nothing that has been said robs him of that esteem The fact is, however, that the Reid Report was really a technical report and was not intended to deal with the organisation of a nationalised industry.
The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), because he has a very great and intimate interest in the coal industry, complained that the

1533
National Coal Board had not invited him to give his opinion on certain matters. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that when his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) was Minister of Fuel and Power he set up the Reid Committee, but he did not invite the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde to sit on that committee either. After all, if his own right hon. and gallant Friend was not prepared to put him on the Reid Committee he must not complain if the National Coal Board does not go running to him asking for his advice about the things they are doing. It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member takes himself rather too seriously about this.
The hon. and gallant Member went on to talk about mechanisation. He suggested that mechanisation had trebled with very little increase in output per man-shift. It certainly has trebled since 1927, but the Reid Report itself said that the reason output per man-shift had not increased proportionately with this great increase in mechanisation was that the mechanisation had started at the wrong end. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelmen), who dealt with this in great detail and with great clarity. I should be glad if hon. Members who are interested in this would read again the speech of my right hon. Friend, who dealt with the matter very clearly. The fact is, of course, that mechanisation must be balanced, and output per man-shift has to take into consideration many relevant factors—the deployment of men about the pit, the number of shifts possible, the number of shifts worked, and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) said, the trend is in the right direction; output per man-shift is going up; and if we continue on that line we shall not come to very much harm.
The other criticism the hon. and gallant Member made was about the lack of autonomy, as he called it, in the pits. I am always inclined to think that hon. Members opposite get a lot of their information inaccurately. They meet their friends, as the hon. Member for Wavertree said he met his friends, but they do not really get the facts. There is an enormous amount of autonomy in the divisions. Indeed, one may almost say there is more autonomy
1534
in the divisions than there is in the big capitalist organisations of this country.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Nonsense.
Mr. Robens: I will challenge the hon. Gentleman some day about it, and we call produce the facts. For the moment I make that statement. Autonomy is right up to a point, but there must be some centralisation, surely, in things like finance and marketing. Indeed, Sir Charles Reid said there was a dearth of mining engineering experience, and that there was need for central stimulus for re-organisation; and so he said there should be some central organisation.
I am sorry, but I shall have to pass over some of the other points with which I wanted to deal in detail; but I am afraid time does not permit me to go into them. However, perhaps I ought to say to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), in relation to the home-grown timber used by the National Coal Board for the mines and for pit props, that up to June of this year that matter was dealt with by the Board of Trade Timber Control, and that is why nothing appears in the report about the use of timber and its purchase. However, the National Coal Board is anxious to use as much home-grown timber as it can. I understand that the Select Committee on Estimates is at the moment going into the question of the accounts, and the National Coal Board has submitted a memorandum. I think we ought to leave that subject there until we can look at what evidence is being presented.
There is one other thing I ought to say, and that is in defence of the Minister. I regret very much indeed the remarks of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I sometimes think that the greatest and best reason for abolishing the university Parliamentary seats lies in the Parliamentary representatives of the universities. I have been brought up amongst some rum people, but I have never met such people as the hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to be well educated and yet can utter the type of cynical abuse which he utters. My right hon. Friend had more courage than the hon. Member would have. He went down to Porthcawl to the annual meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers at its invitation, and he

1535
addressed the miners themselves. He did not make speeches in the country. He did not go abroad to denigrate the miners and the mining industry, but went to the miners and put to them the facts of the situation.
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: He wept.
Mr. Robens: Yes, and if he did, it takes a brave man to do so; and if he is emotional, then that is a good thing
sometimes. If there had been a little more emotion in this industry in the years gone by, we should not have seen it in the sad decline in which it was. This report is a first-class report, one that any Britisher can be proud of, and those who sneer at it have nothing to be proud of in themselves.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 270.

Division No. 278.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Granville, E. (Eye)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Astor, Hon. M.

Gridley, Sir A.

Nutting, Anthony

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimston, R. V.

Odey, G. W.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Bennett, Sir P.

Harris, F. W. (Craydon, N.)

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.

Pitman, I. J.

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

Head, Brig. A. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Boothby, R.

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

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Bossom, A. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hollis, M. C.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

Howard, Hon. A.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Byers, Frank

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

Ropner, Col. L.

Carson, E.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Challen, C.

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

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Channon, H.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Keeling, E. H.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

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

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Smithers, Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cuthbert, W. N.

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

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Davidson, Viscountess

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Linstead, H. N.

Studholme, H. G.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lipson, D. L.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Donner, P. W.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

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

Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Low, A. R. W.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Drewe, C.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Touche, G. C.

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

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Turton, R. H.

Duthie, W. S.

MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Vane, W. M. F.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Erroll, F. J.

McFarlane, C. S.

Walker-Smith, D.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Fox, Sir G.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gage, C.

Marples, A. E.

York, C.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Major Conant and

Glyn, Sir R.

Nicholson, G.

Brigadier Mackeson.

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Nally, W.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Albu, A H.

Ganlay, Mrs. C. S.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Gilzean, A.

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

Allen, A C. (Bosworth)

Glanville, J. E. (Corsett)

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

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Gordon-Walksr, P. C.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Alpass, J. H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Oldfield, W. H.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gronfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Attewell, H. C.

Grey, C. F.

Orbach, M.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Ayles, W. H.

Gunter, R. J.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Baird, J.

Guy, W. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

Pannell, T. C.

Barstow, P. G.

Hale, Leslie

Pargiter, G. A.

Battley, J. R.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Parkin, B. T.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)

Beswick, F.

Hardy, E. A.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Bing, G. H. C.

Harrison, J.

Pearson, A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Blyton, W. R.

Haworth, J.

Popplewell, E.

Boardman, H.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Kingswinford)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Bowden, H. W.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

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

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, M. Philips

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pritt, D. N.

Bramall, E. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Proctor, W. T.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Holman, P.

Pryde, D. J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Brown, George (Belper)

Horabin, T. L.

Reeves, J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Houghton, Douglas

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Burden, T. W.

Hoy, J.

Richards, R.

Burke, W. A.

Hubbard, T.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

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

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)

Robens, A.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Champion, A. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Chater, D.

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

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Cobb, F. A.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Royle, C.

Cocks, F. S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Sargood, R.

Coldrick, W.

Janner, B.

Scollan, T.

Collindridge, F.

Jay, D. P. T.

Scoll-Elliot, W.

Collins, V. J.

Johnston, Douglas

Segal, Dr S.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Sharp, Granville

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Cook, T. F.

Kenyon, C.

Shurmer, P.

Cooper, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

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

Kinley, J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Corlett, Dr J.

Lavers, S.

Simmons, C. J.

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Skinnard, F. W.

Cullen, Mrs.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Daines, P.

Leonard, W.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham S.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Leslie, J. R.

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

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lever, N. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Lindgren, G. S.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

Sparks, J. A.

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

Longden, F.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Davies, R. J. (Westnoughton)

McAdam, W.

Stokes, R. R.

Davies,, S. O. (Merthyr)

McGhee, H. G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Deer, G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

Delargy, H. J.

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Diamond, J.

McKinlay, A. S.

Symonds, A. L.

Dodds, N. N.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Donovan, T.

McLeavy, F.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Driberg, T. E. N.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

MacPherson, T. (Romford)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Edelman, M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thurtle, Ernest

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Tiffany, S.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Timmons, J.

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Tolley, L.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Mayhew, C. P.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Medland, H. M.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Mellish, R. J.

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Ewart, R.

Messer, F.

Usborne, Henry

Fairhurst, F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Farthing, W. J.

Mitchison, G. R.

Viant, S. P.

Fernyhough, E.

Monslow, W.

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

Field, Capt. W. J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

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

Morley, R.

Weilzman, D.

Follick, M.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Foot, M. M.

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

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Forman, J. C.

Moyle, A.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Murray, J. D.

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

1538

1539

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Wigg, George

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Woods, G. S.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

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

Wyatt, W.

Wilkes, L.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Yates, V. F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Willis, E.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
"That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1948."

COCOA INDUSTRY, GOLD COAST
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: From coal we pass to cocoa. I am sure that every hon. Member who stays in the House will already know that the cocoa industry of the Gold Coast is threatened with complete destruction by a small insect called the mealy bug, which carries the virus of swollen shoot from tree to tree. So rapidly has the disease spread that one tree in seven is already infected. Cocoa is, of course, the lifeblood of the Gold Coast. At least one-third of the population of that Colony depend upon it. It constitutes something like 90 per cent. of the agricultural exports, and it is also a very large dollar earner. In a good year Gold Coast cocoa may earn as much as £20 million forth of dollars. Unfortunately, America is so disturbed by the failure of the Administration to eradicate swollen shoot that she is looking elsewhere for other sources of supply.
The disease has been known for 10 years, but so far only one remedy has been discovered, and that is to cut out, to destroy, the infected tree. No way has yet been discovered of protecting the healthy tree against infection. That conclusion was reached long ago by the British Administration and it was confirmed early this year by an international commission of three experts who visited the Colony.
What have the Government done to put this cutting out policy into effect? The reason I am raising this subject tonight is that their administration was critically examined only 10 weeks ago by a cocoa conference which met in London, and
1540
which was attended by representatives of the trade and of the Government. It attracted very little notice in our attenuated newspapers, and so I want to tell the House something about it. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, who attended, claimed that great progress has been made—he said that there had been an enormous change in the last 12 months—and the Secretary of State himself also spoke of progress. But the fact is that it is the mealy bug which has made progress—devastating progress. It is true that the situation has changed, but it has changed very much for the worse. The disease is still gaining ground, and the position is more critical than ever before.
The House has learned to expect complacency both from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, but never was there less ground for complacency than here. Figures were given in another place last March which showed that the number of trees infected was then increasing nearly four times faster than the number being cut down, and although the disease grew much more rapidly in 1948 than in 1947 the rate of cutting out was very little greater. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to produce later and better figures tonight, but it seems most unlikely, because I have here a statement issued by the Public Relations Department in Accra on 6th October, which says:
"The situation continues to be depressing and unless it improves considerably—of which there seems to be no likelihood in the next few months—steps will have to be taken to review the whole position."
This recent conference was attended by many experts and administrators fresh from the Gold Coast, and also by all three members of the International Commission of which I spoke. I want to quote a few statements which were made at the conference. Sir Harold Tempeny, an agricultural chemist with wide experience of the tropics, said:
"There are indications that the tide of the disease continues to rise, and we have to face the unpleasant possibility of an ultimate disappearance of the cocoa industry."

1541
A director of Cadbury's, who is also a member of the Cocoa Research Panel, said:
"All we have done is to put out little bits of the fire here and there, but it catches fire again very quickly."
Mr. Hammond, of the Gold Coast Department of Agriculture, said;
"The efficiency of the treatment is very doubtful."
Finally, the Conference itself, an exceedingly representative body, summed up its conclusions in these words:
"It is disturbing that so little has been accomplished. We are still only swimming slowly against a strongly ebbing tide, which is sweeping the whole industry towards destruction. We concur in the view of the International Commission, which said, in effect: The problem has not received, and is not receiving, adequate attention; it must be tackled on a much larger scale."
In view of all this, it will be interesting to hear what grounds the Secretary of State for the Colonies has for the optimism he has voiced.
Mr. Nally: When?
Mr. Keeling: I have not got time to make all the quotations, but I refer to the answer which he himself gave only two or three weeks ago. At the end of 1946, some time after the full extent of the threat was realised, cutting was made compulsory and was approved by the Legislative Council, on which even then there was an African majority. But early in 1948, because of the riots which took place in the Gold Coast, compulsion was abandoned. That I think was a very grave mistake.
All the evidence given at the Cocoa Conference was that the task of cutting out is made immeasurably more difficult when the consent of every individual has to be obtained. When compulsory powers could be used the Department of Agriculture worked where it liked, and so it made the most efficient use of the staff available. Today one farmer may apply for cutting out, but his neighbour may refuse and the contagion may spread. The diseased tree lives for two years, during which it is a constant source of infection. Dr. Berkeley, one of the international Commissioners, said:
"With a piecemeal proposition, you may have to take two steps backward for every step you take forward."
1542
The official figures I gave just now prove that. I regret, therefore, that compulsion was abandoned, and I am quite sure that if it had been retained the situation would have been very different today.
I admit, however, that at this moment compulsion is not a practical proposition, because it can hardly be re-imposed at the very moment when responsibility, and indeed, power, is going to be handed over to a mainly African executive council. We all hope that the Africans will use their new power wisely and well. It is for them to consider whether to reimpose compulsion in view of the utter failure of consent. It is certain that they will be judged very largely by the way in which they grapple with this terrible problem, which is by far the most important problem of the Gold Coast today.
One of the questions which the new African Ministers will have to consider will be the mortgage system. Almost every cocoa farmer mortgages his crop. When the Government urge him to cut out diseased trees he not unnaturally says, "That is all very well, but it will reduce my chance of paying off the mortgage." The West African Cocoa Board have done very little about this problem. In other Colonies, however, and particularly Cyprus and Zanzibar, a great deal has been done, so that the farmers are almost freed from the millstone of debt. If the new, mainly African, Gold Coast Government tackle this matter, it will help to reduce the farmers' reluctance to cut out.
Pending the setting up of a new Government in the Gold Coast, what is to be done? I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the British Government cannot escape its responsibility during the interval. First of all, far more strenuous efforts must be made to recruit the necessary staff, which is required for two purposes. The first purpose is to persuade the farmer to agree to cutting out. He must be got to realise that however painful the elimination of swollen shoot may be, the whole of his future depends upon it. Secondly, staff are required to supervise the cutting out and the payment of compensation. Without an adequate staff for those two purposes, the disease will continue to spread.
At the conference, Dr. Berkeley, whom I have already quoted, said:

1543
"If cutting out is to be of any real value it must be done on a much larger scale. I do not want to say that you should have 200 or 400 men. You should have all the men required to do the job and should forget about what it costs."
The Cocoa Conference as a whole was not at all satisfied that the efforts to get the necessary staff were being pursued with sufficient energy. Questions were asked, such as, "Is the pay offered adequate to attract?" "Why are there no advertisements in the British daily papers?" "Have the universities been approached?" "Could not Dutchmen who have served in Indonesia and who are now out of work be recruited?" That suggestion was made by a Dutch professor of agriculture, who knew what he was talking about.
On the other hand, there were official excuses about the difficulties of accommodation and training. One official actually said that the building used for training supervisors had been taken away by the Government. In Heaven's name, why was the building taken away? It was also said by officials that the department could only handle a few men at the time, and that too many would be an embarrassment. But the conference was unconvinced. Its feeling was summed up by a member of it who said:
"We have a Colony which might well go under for lack of men, who could be trained in five months."
The second thing which must be undertaken is intensive research to find a remedy for swollen shoot other than cutting out. No money should be spared on this either. But it is not at all certain that any remedy will be found, and therefore unless and until such remedy is found, cutting out must proceed ruthlessly. As long as we remain responsible for the administration of the Gold Coast we shall fail in our duty if we do not double and re-double our efforts to conquer the mortal danger which threatens the Colony today.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Nally: Although I appreciate that there is considerable merit in what has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the mealy bug is not a thing which has suddenly arisen since the Labour Government took power in 1945.
Mr. Keeling: I agree.
Mr. Nally: The danger of the mealy bug and the difficulties it was likely to cause to this most important crop, upon which the economy of so many people and territories depended, was well known prior to 1939. It is completely unfair to pretend, even by inference, that even before the outbreak of the war it was not well known among those who were interested in this sort of problem that the mealy bug, although at that time not developed as it is now, might assume the proportions of a menace. It is a matter of fact that in 1939 many organisations, including an organisation with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was associated, had repeatedly drawn attention to the potentially catastrophic dangers which existed if sufficient money and staff were not devoted to the problem, which at that time, I agree, was in its infancy.
The major point to be made concerns the research, organisation and number of staff now being deployed in a situation which is much worse than ever it was. If we compare the appropriate figures for 1938 and the present figures, the Secretary of State and the Government, far from being ashamed at what is being done—
Mr. Erroll: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to introduce party politics into a discussion at a time when the Gold Coast is faced with delicate and difficult constitutional changes, and seek to spoil a Debate which we hoped would help the Gold Coast and not hinder it, as will the adoption of a narrow-minded attitude like that of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally)?
Mr. Speaker: On the Adjournment anything is in Order.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is unwise, but it is in Order. It is a great pity.
Mr. Nally: The attempt of the Opposition to denigrate the present administration of the Colonial Office has done no service at all to the cause of the Gold Coast.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are the same advisers whoever is in office.
Mr. Nally: With this Government there is not only the question of advisers but the long-term points of view held by our Ministers, and we rely on our Ministers. Since 1945 more money and more research have been devoted to this problem than ever before, even though the problem existed in 1938. It is unfair to say that the Secretary of State has been optimistic about this. The truth is that in every Parliamentary answer and every statement he has made, although he has pointed out that more money, more people and more research have been devoted to this than ever before, he has never failed to point out that the difficulties have assumed crisis proportions. Far from there being any attempt by me to raise a party point, an attempt was made in some context to pretend that the Secretary of State had done less than his duty in dealing with a problem which was in his mind and in his heart before hon. Members opposite even thought of it.
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: In the odd moment which I may be allowed, I should like to point out that the cutting out of these trees is a very drastic remedy, and it is questionable whether the trees can now be cut out fast enough. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us an assurance that the rate of cutting out of the trees is equal to the rate of progress of the mealy bug itself. Equally, I think that we should remember that the drastic remedy adopted for foot and mouth disease in this country has been successful, and is an example which the natives of the Gold Coast might well remember.
There is no ground for complacency, and I hope that in the reply of the Secretary of State tonight there will be no suggestion of complacency. It has been suggested that the new constitutional arrangements which may take place in the Gold Coast will provide a fine test of their ability to apply their new political power to this very great problem. I think that is a very severe test to apply to a new cabinet, if a cabinet is to be formed. I hope the Colonial Office will not shirk the responsibility of dealing with this disease by wishing it on to the Gold Coast under any new constitutional arrangements made there.
10.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I regret the note of party polemics which was struck by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in introducing this Debate tonight.
Mr. Keeling: Which sentence?
Mr. Creech Jones: The suggestion that the Government, or I myself, have been complacent in regard to this problem I completely and utterly repudiate. No one has demanded more, or shown a greater sense of urgency, or stressed the imperative need for tackling this problem in the Gold Coast, than I have. On no occasion have I expressed any optimism in regard to the manner in which the campaign was being carried on in the Gold Coast. I have always indicated the gravity of the disease, the effect it was likely to have on the vital industry, and the effect it was likely to have in regard to the revenues of the Gold Coast; and how it would, sooner or later, sap the economic future on which the prosperity and happiness of that particular territory depended.
But this is really a baffling problem. It is not merely an agricultural problem which can be tackled in a straightforward way by people who understand scientific methods. It is fundamentally a political problem as well. Consequently it is impossible for the Government to go forward with compulsory measures the effect of which would only be to inflame a difficult political situation and to cause very considerable trouble in that area. The basis of all effort in regard to this disease must be education, persuasion, and the winning of the confidence of the farmers in the technical advisers of the Gold Coast Government.
It is easy enough for the hon. Gentleman to come here and say that it is wrong for the campaign of compulsion of 1948 to be brought to an end. But he knows that if that policy had been persisted in, the whole Gold Coast would have been ablaze. It must be remembered that the Commissions which visited the Gold Coast, first the Watson Commission, and later the International Commission which was appointed as a result of the Watson Commission's Report, did not complain about the abandonment of the policy of compulsory cutting out. Indeed, those Commissions recognised that

1547
in the political situation which existed there, the abandonment of that policy was essential. I do want to stress that if one wants to defeat the efforts to deal with this problem, the surest way is to launch compulsion so far as the treatment is concerned.
Mr. Keeling: If I may take one moment of the time left, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he recalls that I distinctly said that compulsion was not practical politics today.
Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, but the hon. Member said it was wrong on the part of the Gold Coast Administration to have varied its policy in April, 1948. I am completely certain of the fact that it was politically wise of the Government to have taken that line in April, 1948, and equally certain that considerable disturbances would have followed in the Gold Coast if the policy had been persisted. That was made very clear in the Watson Committee Report when examining the causes of the disturbances in March and April last year.
What is the position to-day? I have never said that we are happy and satisfied with the progress made, but I repeat that no fewer than six million trees, up to the middle of this summer, have actually been cut out; and that process has proceeded at the rate of 350,000 trees a month. There is greater application for cutting out from the farmers who, as a result of the active campaign of propaganda through the Press and over the radio, are made aware of this. On every occasion of the Governor's tour there is a greater awareness of the gravity of this disease and a greater desire for the only treatment discovered to be applied. We have reached a point where, as a result of education and persuasion, the farmers are clamouring for the cutting out to proceed, and we are unable to cope with the applications made.
Mr. Keeling: What is the use of cutting out at a rate of 350,000 trees a month—which is a little more than four million a year—when the Government said in another place that even a year ago the rate of infection was 15 million a year.
Mr. Creech Jones: I agree that the disease is, as I have always said, increasing at a rapid rate, but there were practical difficulties in coping with the rate of the disease. We have had to pursue a vigorous policy of education largely because of the political difficulties in the Gold Coast. If the hon. Member thinks the Gold Coast Government could have proceeded forthwith with a policy of cutting out, then I say to him that that is the surest way of losing the territory and causing disturbances. Surely he will agree that that is not a very happy way of handling political or economic policy in our territories.
This matter is very much in the mind of the Governor. Every time he has made a tour of the area he has brought out the importance of cutting out; he has mobilised the African farmers' opinion and he has the endorsement of most of the political leaders in the Gold Coast and has, at last, obtained general consent for his policy. He will, at the meeting of the Legislative Council which is to be held at the end of this month or the beginning of next, put forward his campaign in the hope of catching up with some of the backlog in this matter.
In the meantime, a great deal of training is going on; supervisors for the campaign are being recruited; many are actually at work. Assistants to the supervisors are going through their training and large numbers of men are going in the labour gangs which have been engaged for the cutting out. We do not want a flare-up in the Gold Coast. It should be appreciated that the conducting of this campaign, even with goodwill, does call for a great deal of effort; but as there is the survey which will go on during the harvest time, I hope a great deal more will be done when the current harvest is reaped.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Utility Goods (Prices)
  Utility Goods (Prices)
  Carbon Black
  Carbon Black
  Quantitative Restrictions (Removal)
  Quantitative Restrictions (Removal)
  Resale Price Maintenance (Report)
  Resale Price Maintenance (Report)
  Mineral Development (Committee's Recommendations)
  Mineral Development (Committee's Recommendations)
  American Books (Import Licences)
  American Books (Import Licences)
  Caterers' Crockery (Marking)
  Caterers' Crockery (Marking)
  North-Eastern Development Area (Factories)
  North-Eastern Development Area (Factories)
  Trade and Navigation Accounts
  Trade and Navigation Accounts
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS (USE)
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS (USE)
  SPEED LIMITS (ENFORCEMENT)
  SPEED LIMITS (ENFORCEMENT)
  CORRECTIVE TRAINING AND PREVENTIVE DETENTION
  CORRECTIVE TRAINING AND PREVENTIVE DETENTION
  CRIMINAL STATISTICS, LONDON
  CRIMINAL STATISTICS, LONDON
  POLLING DISTRICTS, NEWARK DIVISION
  POLLING DISTRICTS, NEWARK DIVISION
  REGISTER OF ELECTORS (PUBLICATION)
  REGISTER OF ELECTORS (PUBLICATION)
AGRICULTURE
  Sugar Beet Tops (Livestock Feeding)
  Sugar Beet Tops (Livestock Feeding)
  Land Sales
  Land Sales
  Economies
  Economies
  Goods and Services Scheme
  Goods and Services Scheme
  German Farm Workers
  German Farm Workers
  Cattle (Tuberculosis Eradication)
  Cattle (Tuberculosis Eradication)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Groundnuts Scheme (Dollar Expenditure)
  Groundnuts Scheme (Dollar Expenditure)
  Government Departments (Debt)
  Government Departments (Debt)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Houses (Purchase Price)
  Houses (Purchase Price)
  Old Age Pensioners (Tobacco Tokens)
  Old Age Pensioners (Tobacco Tokens)
  Italian-Owned Gold
  Italian-Owned Gold
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANPOWER (REPORT)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANPOWER (REPORT)
HOUSING
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  Camp, Huntingdonshire (Sanitation)
  Camp, Huntingdonshire (Sanitation)
  Private Building
  Private Building
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Homes for Incurables
  Homes for Incurables
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Hearing Aids (Cost)
  Hearing Aids (Cost)
  Spectacles Supply
  Spectacles Supply
  Wigs
  Wigs
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Children's Convalescence
  Children's Convalescence
  Rivers Axe and Brue (Pollution)
  Rivers Axe and Brue (Pollution)
EMPLOYMENT
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Ship-Repairing Industry
  Ship-Repairing Industry
  Woolwich
  Woolwich
  First Preference Industries and Distribution
  First Preference Industries and Distribution
  Public Services
  Public Services
  North Staffordshire
  North Staffordshire
EDUCATION
  Schoolchildren (Hop Picking)
  Schoolchildren (Hop Picking)
  Economies
  Economies
  Milk in Schools
  Milk in Schools
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Ben Rhydding School, Yorkshire
  Ben Rhydding School, Yorkshire
  Land Acquisition, Preston
  Land Acquisition, Preston
  Canteen, Embleton
  Canteen, Embleton
  Canteen, Fewston School
  Canteen, Fewston School
  Independent Schools
  Independent Schools
  Secondary School Pupils (Aid)
  Secondary School Pupils (Aid)
  Graduate Teachers
  Graduate Teachers
  CHINA (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)
  CHINA (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)
  REGENT TSHEKEDI
  REGENT TSHEKEDI
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MATERNTY GRANTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MATERNTY GRANTS)
  PIG AND POULTRY FEEDINGSTUFFS
  PIG AND POULTRY FEEDINGSTUFFS
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND
  WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE (WHITE PAPER)
  WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE (WHITE PAPER)
  SOMALILAND (ADMINISTRATION)
  SOMALILAND (ADMINISTRATION)
  BARBADOS (MAUDE REPORT)
  BARBADOS (MAUDE REPORT)
  LUGANDA NEWSPAPER (SEDITIOUS ARTICLE)
  LUGANDA NEWSPAPER (SEDITIOUS ARTICLE)
  TANGANYIKA AND NYASALAND (COAL DEPOSITS)
  TANGANYIKA AND NYASALAND (COAL DEPOSITS)
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK
  ROAD SAFETY (WESTERN AVENUE)
  ROAD SAFETY (WESTERN AVENUE)
  ANGLO-BRAZILIAN CULTURAL RELATIONS
  ANGLO-BRAZILIAN CULTURAL RELATIONS
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The VISCOUNT SIMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Chaworth (E. Meath)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ELECTEON COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to Election Commissioners. I beg to move that it he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Darwen.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTTON OF SEATS) (No. 4) ORDER, 1949.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th October last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on October 27 last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
2.37 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 12:
Provision of accommodation, meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places
12.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area
478
(whether by the authority or by other persons)

(a) of accommodation, meals and refreshments (including intoxicating liquor);

(b) of camping sites; and

(c) of parking places and means of access thereto and egress therefrom,

and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (1):
"provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than a power of erecting buildings or carrying out work), to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner in which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory, the facility or service for the provision of which the power is exercisable."
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Rutland, who I regret to say is unable to come to-day owing to indisposition, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a happy Amendment with which to start the day's proceedings, and it seeks merely to restore into the Bill a provision which the Minister himself originally said should be in it. Therefore I do not think there is a great deal for me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.
This provision was originally Clause 14 when the Bill was introduced in another place. Further discussion of it was promised there, but it was dropped out, and on the Report stage there was no discussion. Its purpose is quite simple: it is designed to secure that when the local planning authorities embark, or consider the question of embarking, on the provision of catering and other facilities in these areas they shall first have to assure themselves that there are not already adequate facilities there. That is not asking a great deal. As your Lordships know, these areas that are likely to be designated are, naturally, holiday areas, where the hotel and catering business already operates to a considerable extent. Nor is it merely a matter of the hotel and catering industry: small farmhouses and cottages are all providing their quota of service. Surely we want to do everything possible in this Bill to encourage those who are already operating services in these districts. How can we expect these interests to make any of the

479
progress that we should like made in improving their facilities if they have hanging over them a Sword of Damocles, in the form of the local authority being able to come in and provide facilities in competition with them? I think the case is so simple and so clear that I ask the noble Lord straightaway to accept this Amendment, thereby restoring the position that the Minister established in his own Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD REA: I wish to support this Amendment. It seems to me to be an Amendment which the noble Lord can hardly resist, because it is so modest. As the noble Earl pointed out, the local authority must satisfy themselves that there are not already adequate facilities provided by what one might call private enterprise before they themselves proceed. It seems to me that the phrase in the Amendment:
"provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection…to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory,…"
is so generous that I am surprised that the hotel people, who have a great interest in this matter, have not pressed some of your Lordships to insert something stronger. I suggest that this is a modest and fair Amendment, which I hope the Government will find it possible to accept.
LORD ROCHESTER: I too desire to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, and I can confirm all that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just said. It is indeed surprising that the catering interests themselves have not moved. I would remind your Lordships that only the day before yesterday, when we were discussing an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on model bylaws for these public parks, I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to the experiences of the City of London Corporation who, for over seventy years, have been managing Epping Forest and have provided model bylaws which have been their guide in all the open spaces they have since come to control. I would remind your Lordships that no difficulty
480
should arise if the Amendment is accepted. The provision was in the original Bill as introduced in another place and, in the experience of the City of London Corporation, it is clearly unnecessary that this provision should be resisted by the Government. In the case of Epping Forest there are already at least three licensed properties: the Robin Hood, in the Forest; the Kings Oak, at High Beech; and the Royal Forest Hotel, at Chingford. These hotels are not on Epping Forest land; they do not belong to the Epping Forest Committee, as the conservators, who have no licences of their own. I suggest to the Government that it is quite unnecessary that they should take this power. I hope they will not resist this Amendment.
LORD WINSTER: I should like to say a few words on this Amendment as it affects the Lake District. Hotel accommodation there happens to be very good, and in many parts it is adequate, but the more important point is that the tourist traffic is of great importance to the farmers in that district. There was general agreement the other night that the farmers in the Lake District have a pretty hard struggle to make both ends meet. Undoubtedly, an important factor in their budget is the providing of accommodation and refreshment for visitors. We should be very careful before we give encouragement to local authorities to set up their own accommodation for visitors, thereby competing with the farmers and possibly depriving them of an important part of their income.
LORD CHORLEY: I should have been glad to start to-day, if possible, by accepting the Amendment of the noble Earl, but I am afraid I cannot do so. Before I deal with the arguments which he put forward, I should like to make two points. In the first place, I think he did not—no doubt quite unintentionally—give the words of the Amendment their proper meaning. They do not deal with existing facilities, but consider the position where
"it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide…facility or service."
That is concerned not only with places where there are existing inns or farmhouses, but also with places where there are no facilities at all but where it is argued that somebody might be prepared

481
to come in—which is, with respect, rather a different kettle of fish.
The noble Earl also rather suggested—again, no doubt, without intending to cast any reflection upon the Minister—that no opportunity was given in another place for discussion of this problem. I understand, however, that what happened there was that when the Question was put, whoever had undertaken to speak about it was not ready or did not hear, with the result that on technical grounds the discussion did not take place. It was not a question of the Minister not being prepared to have a discussion. Then Lord Rochester told us, from his own experience, about arrangements which had proved quite satisfactory in the metropolitan area, and more particularly in Epping Forest. I suggest, however, that what might be quite satisfactory in Epping Forest has little relationship to the situation in Snowdonia, in the Lake District, at the Roman Wall or in some other wild and rather inaccessible place where you may have to travel for many miles before you find an inn or even farmhouse accommodation where refreshment is available. It is quite true that as the Bill was first introduced it contained a provision of this kind; but it went much further than my right honourable friend had intended.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Who drafted the Bill? Did he not draft it?
LORD CHORLEY: It sometimes happens that the words chosen go rather further than is intended.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord will forgive me, but the Minister's name must have been on the back of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: The Minister's name was, of course, on the back of the Bill. What the Minister is particularly anxious to secure is that the local planning authority shall be able in a good case to assist voluntary organisations which over the past years have been doing particularly good work in the way of providing accommodation in many of these rather out of the way parts of England, where undoubtedly there has been great difficulty in obtaining accommodation. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the work which has been done by such organisations as the Youth Hostels
482
Association. Under this clause it will be possible to make a capital Brant to an organisation of that kind in order to assist it to provide accommodation. But, if this Amendment were accepted, that might very well be ruled out. My right honourable friend is most anxious that the existing accommodation shall be fully used. I suggest that there is not the remotest chance that the local authority will wish to add redundant accommodation in parts of the country in which there is already satisfactory provision. But in cases where the local facilities are not satisfactory, it is most important that the local planning authority should be in a position to provide the necessary facilities, either directly or by assistance granted to one of the voluntary organisations to which I have already referred.
A little further down on the Marshalled List the Committee will see another Amendment in the names of the same noble Lords who arc proposing this Amendment, and under which it would not he possible for the local planning authority to provide accommodation in cases where they would be likely to make a loss. If both these Amendments were accepted, the result would be that it would be impossible for the local planning authority to provide accommodation of this kind unless they could be sure that they would break even, a conclusion it would he impossible to arrive at by way of forecast. It is essential that the local planning authority should have these powers. In my submission it is most unlikely, except in a most unusual case, that they would provide accommodation which would not pay for itself. The result of these Amendments would be to drive them out of the market altogether. My right honourable friend takes the view that in a proper case there is no reason why there should not be fair competition. Where there are already sufficient existing facilities it seems most unlikely, indeed, quite unbelievable, that the local authority, which, after all, represents the interests of the local people, should wish to provide accommodation. In these circumstances, I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Until we come to it on a later Amendment, I need not deal with the curious but no doubt sincere admission made by the Minister that

483
it would be unreasonable, if not impossible, to expect State trading establishments in the catering business to carry on otherwise than at a loss. But we note that important admission for further consideration when it becomes more appropriate to the debate. I must say that if the speech to which we have just listened was the best defence that could be put up against this clause, which was in the original Bill, the Minister in another place was singularly fortunate in not having to rise to his feet to defend its omission. I have never heard a more arid, jejune defence put up to any proposal. Why should State trading be brought by a side wind into this Bill, which is commended to us as a Bill which we ought to support in order to make these national parks a success, and which, as we have been told by the Minister over and over again, depend for their success upon the good will of everybody in the district?
LORD CHORLEY: With respect to the noble Viscount, there is no question of State trading being provided for by the clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then what is a local authority?
LORD CHORLEY: It is not a State trading concern; it is a municipal authority.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We are to draw this distinction! Let me tell the noble Lord frankly that I take equal exception to this kind of subsidised, unnecessary, uneconomic competition, and particularly in what is supposed to be a non-controversial Bill. I take exception to it whether it is carried on by Mr. Silkin's Department or whether it is carried on by some subsidiary local authority, no doubt prodded on and stimulated, if not directed, by the Minister, to engage in these activities. I should not be at all surprised if somewhere in the ninety-six clauses of this Bill we find power given to the Minister to give directions. I know the form so well—directions either of a general or a specific character. But why should this power be given here if the hotels are available? Hotels are having a very difficult time, particularly in country districts. I am not going to criticise the Catering Order now, but everybody knows how difficult it has made things; and everybody knows
484
that these hotels depend entirely on seasonal traffic in order to carry on.
Then the noble Lord said that if the hotel accommodation as it exists at present is adequate, the State or the municipal authority would not come in with its subsidised competition. The Committee will observe that no encouragement is given to the hotels to develop accommodation to meet the needs and the requirements of tourists who are coming to these national parks. Oh, no! I suppose that is because it is private enterprise and we must shut down upon any such development. How very consistent that is with the appeal to us to produce a little more and to give a little better service! Here the hotels are to be penalised if they try and meet the requirements that develop with the situation.
The Committee will observe that the criticism of this matter is not confined to one side of the House; all three Parties are joining against it. I quite agree with Lord Winster in his observations about farmhouses and the little cottages—often a cottage kept by a widow woman. In the days before Mr. Strachey imposed his austerity upon us, the best meal one could get was the good meat tea. We used to get ham and eggs. We did not only "bury them with ham" in Yorkshire. On all our walks we could always be perfectly certain of going into any local pub and getting a first-class tea of ham and eggs, and if there was not a pub there it was ten to one that at any house one stopped in the dales or the fells, so long as people were allowed to keep a few chickens—and they cannot do that now—we could get a good meal. We would knock on the door and say: "Mistress, can you give me a dish of tea?", and she would do so. That was how things went on. It provided a social service and an agreeable intercourse: I should have thought that was exactly the kind of thing one would wish to encourage when bringing the townsman into the country—to get the townsman and the countryman to mix on these agreeable terms.
Then the noble Lord says, "But if I accept your Amendment, then the out-of-the-way places where the weary traveller cannot get anything to eat and drink will not be catered for." That is not so at all. Perhaps he will take the trouble to read the Amendment—I call it "the

485
Amendment" because it appears on the Marshalled List as such, but the words are identical with the words that the Minister put into the Bill. We are told that the Minister, who presumably takes some trouble in presenting Bills to the House, let this come into an early clause. It is Clause 12 (it was Clause 14), and he had not to read very far to come upon this passage. It was not an unimportant passage, but we are told that it slipped the Minister's notice. Really, that is the first time I have ever heard an excuse like that advanced! in any Government in which I have served, if I had put up the excuse to my Prime Minister that a clause of fundamental importance had slipped my notice, I am sure he would have said, "Your misbehaviour has not slipped mine," and I do not think I should have continued very long in office.
The provision which we are now seeking to put back does not preclude the local authority from acting in cases where there is no accommodation, or where no accommodation can be provided. Just look at the words. I agree with my noble friend on the Liberal Beaches. I must say that I think this is an extremely generous Amendment, because the local authority are left with the last word. The Amendment says:
…unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide…"
If the local authority on the Roman Wall, where there is no house at which refreshment can be provided be satisfied that no one is going to provide refreshments then under this clause the local planning authority will be able to step in and do so. Therefore, the case of these out-of-the-way places is properly met. Noble Lords in all quarters wish to give the Bill their support, but if we are to have thrust upon us a provision such as that in Clause 12 (1), which means that the Bill is radically different even from what it was when it was first presented to the House of Commons, and if the alteration is grossly unfair to hotel proprietors and other people in these country areas, then I say that that is not the way to get the Bill passed. It is certainly not the way to commend this plan to the Committee. If that is to be the last word from the Government—and no doubt the Minister is acting on instructions—I sincerely hope
486
that my noble friend will divide the Committee upon this Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I hesitate to intervene in this charming discussion during which we have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, deliver one of those thoroughly delightful speeches which we are accustomed to hear from him and which we enjoy so much. Much of it, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, but that is a detail. There were a few political embroideries; but those we accept in good part. Quite frankly, I do not know what was in the Minister's mind at the time when this provision, or something like it, was inserted in the original Bill. I will accept the principle laid down by the noble Viscount that the Minister is responsible for his Bill. Of course he is; we all know that. No one wishes to pretend for a moment that that is not so. But I think it has not been fairly represented how this matter began. The noble Viscount has overlooked—whether by accident or otherwise I do not know—what is provided at the beginning of Clause 12. The first subsection commences:
"A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the prow slim in their area (whether by the authority or by other persons)"—
and ends by saying:
"and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient."
That is to say, if the accommodation is there already, whether it is provided by a cottager or a local inn or whatever it may he, no case arises for the local planning authority to make any provision.
I may say that I myself have enjoyed the charming hospitality of farmhouses and cottages, just as the noble Viscount has clone, many and many a time in my early life. I, too, have called at local inns and had ham and eggs. I repeat that if these facilities already exist there is no cause for the authority to do anything, because the provision that is wanted is already secured. The Bill states only that they
"may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area."
That means they have to make arrangements for securing it if it is not there

487
already. There is nothing affecting places in Epping Forest where there is an hotel. I am sure that if there were an hotel there, it would never enter the minds of the authority to take any steps to provide something additional; what is needed will already be there. And I may say that I hope these hotels and inns will do a thriving business. I hope that a great deal more business will be brought to these areas, and I trust that those who cater for visitors will extend their provision for meeting their requirements. What the Bill does provide—and for my part I think it is a very sensible provision —is that where these facilities are not available for walkers and others in remote areas, it shall be open to the local planning authority to make this kind of provision. That seems to me to be a thoroughly sensible thing to do.
It is really riding the horse of private enterprise to death to object to a thing like this. Why in the world should not the local planning authorities be able to do this? They are responsible for looking after these remote areas, getting people to visit them, and making the areas accessible and attractive. If there is not a place where a man can get a sandwich and a glass of beer—I know that a noble Lord has an Amendment with regard to that matter which will come before us later on—why should they not be able to establish one? It is our anxiety to be as accommodating as is possible on behalf of the Government over this Bill. We are most anxious to meet the temper of the Committee, and so I would ask noble Lords opposite not to press this in the way that they are now doing. The people who are responsible for these national parks must be able to provide this kind of service if it does not already exist. It seems to me that it would be completely unreasonable to prevent them from doing so. Notwithstanding the moving speech of the noble Viscount, I would appeal to noble Lords not to press this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may say so with respect I have heard nothing more reasonable in this connection than the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of th House, bcause he was describing exactly what our Amendment would do. He asked: Why should not the local planning
488
authority provide this accommodation where it is not already available. If he would look at the Amendment he would see that that is just what we say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Amendment goes much further than that. It imposes on the local planning authority the duty of finding out whether no other person is able or willing to provide what is required. I do not know whether they would be supposed to advertise in The Times or how they could be expected to find that out.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Sometimes one of the best ways of looking at an Amendment is to read it in reverse. If your Lordships will apply that test to this Amendment and ask yourselves what will happen if this Amendment is not added to the Bill, I think you will see what I mean. If this Amendment is not inserted we shall be giving authority to these local planning authorities to provide these facilities even though other persons are able and willing to provide them, and to provide them in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory. If we do not have this Amendment in we shall be instructing the local planning authorities, in effect, that what Parliament intends is that, although this accommodation may be available, although there may be people well-known in the neighbourhood able and willing to provide it, nevertheless it is the wish of Parliament that the local planning authority should step in and do so. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House and I are at one in saying that where there is nothing at all, and no one willing to provide what is called for, we will leave it to the local planning authority to do it. That is what they could do if this Amendment were added to this Bill. After his speech the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should certainly go with us into the Lobby if we divide on this Motion because that is exactly what we are proposing to the Committee.
I believe that we should be well advised to adopt this Amendment. Do not let us put all the blame on the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The Lord President of the Council, Mr. Dalton, Secretary Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Tom Williams, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. King were among those who approved the words in the

489
original Bill before the Government altered it. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has frankly realised that he cannot quite get away with saying that the original words went a bit further than was intended. A man does not get away with that if he signs a cheque for £1,000 and has only £200 in the bank. It is no good his saying: "My cheque went a little bit further than I intended." That sort of thing does not go down. What happened to make all these gentlemen think better of it, in the interval I do not know. Second thoughts, it is said, are best; and sometimes, I think, second thoughts on second thoughts are best of all. It may well be advisable that we should say that we in this Committee adopt the kind of line with regard to the provision of this accommodation by local planning authorities which has been so well stated to us by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
LORD CHORLEY: May I intervene again, since noble Lords opposite have made a great point about existing accommodation, to suggest that we should consider some form of words which would provide that if existing accommodation was not sufficient, alternative arrangements could be made? I do not, of course, promise, that we could insert such a provision. As I said before, though the point was not taken up by the noble Lord, my right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning is anxious to assist voluntary organisations, especially those which provide for young people. If noble Lords felt that consultations on these lines would be useful, it might be possible to do something.
EARL. DE LA WARR: I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has just said. Obviously he is trying to meet us, but his suggestion does not really meet the point. At the present time we are exhorting every trade and industry in the country to produce more; and not least, we are exhorting the hotel and catering industry to improve their facilities. The noble Lord's suggestion goes completely
counter to that. It is not merely a matter of existing accommodation. We want to see the small hotels and catering establishments, some of them farmhouses and even cottages, improve the facilities which they offer. I am not going to repeat the arguments, because we have gone into this matter very thoroughly. If the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will allow me to say so, he is very busy with other matters, and I do not think he quite appreciates the feeling in the House on this matter. We are discussing a question which deeply affects men, often with very little capital, who have their all invested in a small hotel or boarding establishment; they are not great capitalist concerns. We do not want to have Divisions on this Bill. We feel it is fundamentally a good Bill and we want to support it. I would appeal to the noble Viscount to save us from dividing by intervening, as he so often does helpfully, to give us an assurance that he will take up this matter with the Minister between now and Report stage in an endeavour to get him to meet us. Unless we have an assurance, and I may say a very strong assurance, it is much better that the House should be allowed to give their verdict.
EARL HOWE: The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, argued against this Amendment that if accommodation already existed there the local authority would never dream of providing it. But the local authorities take their pattern from the Government, and did the Government use that argument when they set up the hotel in Park Street? Surely we might have a better argument than that—if there is one. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the assurance for which he asks. It will save us a Division.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I wish I could give that assurance, but I cannot at this stage, I am afraid.
On Question, Whether the proposed proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

De La Warr, E.

Onslow, E.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Radnor. E.

Beauchamp. E.

Halifax, E.

Scarbrough, E.

Bessborouch, E.

Howe, E.

Craven, E.

Lindsay, E.

Allenby, V.

Hailsham, V.

Cranworth, L.

Mancroft, L.

Samuel, V.

Deramore, L.

Milverton, L.

Simon, V.

Derwent, L.

Monkswell, L.

Swinton, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rea, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Gifford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Hankey, L.

Rochester, L.

Aberdare, L.

Hawke, L.

Saltoun, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Schuster, L.

Braye, L.

Hylton, L.

Teynham, L.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Llewellin, L.

Wolverton, L.

Clydesmuir, L.

Luke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

Huntingdon, E.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Esher, V.

Darwen, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Shepherd, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.20 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the clause:
"() A Justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1949, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with the provisions of accommodation, meals and refreshment under this section shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption with a meal and a local planning authority shall in carrying on any activities under this section be subject to all enactments and rules of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in like manner as other persons carrying on the like activities."
The noble Lord said: St. Paul admonished the Corinthians to
"utter by the tongue words easy to be understood."
I purpose following that advice in addressing your Lordships this afternoon, for the Amendment I am about to move is of real substance and one which has, I have every reason to believe by the communications which have reached me since the Second Reading of the Bill, a large body of public opinion behind it. By a happy coincidence, the leading article in to-day's issue of the Methodist Recorder calls attention to the
"waste of resources and of human life that has reached appalling proportions"
through intoxicating liquor. Let me read one sentence of that article to your Lordships concerning the seriousness of the situation. It says:
"Responsible medical opinion confirms it; the possibility of the dangerous growth of indulgence is not negligible, for he that thinks he stands should take heed lest he fall; and if the Christian doctrine that we are members one of another is valid it should abate cheap sneers against setting a good example, for that is a plain part of a Christian's duty."
492
In last week's issue of another Methodist weekly, Joyful News, strong protest is made
"against the action of the Government in inserting in its Bill provision for intoxicating liquor in the national parks."
Although I am not a member of the Labour Party, my inclination is more and more to the Left and, speaking generally, I am by and large a supporter of the present Government. I am the more sorry, therefore, to join issue with them on one aspect of this Bill, especially as I am in full agreement with its general objectives. While I am anxious to avoid tautology I must remind your Lordships of the genesis of this matter. On the Civic Restaurants Act of two years ago and again on the Housing Act as recently as July of this year, I moved Amendments in your Lordships' House to eliminate altogether the provisions therein for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquors. I need not recapitulate all that transpired on those two occasions: suffice it to say that, as that was too much for your Lordships to concede, I was eventually a party to a compromise and withdrew those Amendments on the undertaking of the noble Lord in charge of the respective Bills that, if I did so, the Government would meet the position by accepting a later Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Llewellin providing for licences to be restricted in just such a way as the Amendment I am now moving would restrict them—namely, to the supply of liquor with meals only.
I want to be consistent. Having failed on both the previous occasions to get all I wanted (I was, as I have said, party to that compromise), I am now asking the Government to be equally consistent.

493
In other words, I am seeking to save them from themselves. This is the more necessary because of their fall from grace in breaking the pledge which they gave at the General Election that liquor should not be sold in civic restaurants. I take it that the Government do not contest the fact that they have broken that pledge. As I pointed out on the Second Reading, this Bill as at present drawn leaves the door wide open, not only to restricted licences for liquor consumption with meals, but for full justices' licences with cocktail bars and all the rest. In other words, for drink and still more drink.
We have fought this matter out in your Lordships' House twice already when, thanks to the intervention of my noble friend the Leader of the House and the patience of the noble Lord the Paymaster-General, aided by the cogency of the arguments employed by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, the Government gave way. Is it really unreasonable to ask that they should at least be consistent to the extent of not making, in the same Parliament, two different provisions to meet the same point? It is almost forty-four years since I first entered Parliament, and in all that time I cannot recall such palpable inconsistency being persisted in by any Government after the facts had been laid bare.
This is such an unanswerable case that I refuse to believe that the Government will not yield. Unless they do, it seems to me it will be tantamount to throwing over the reiterated counsel and advice of the noble Viscount, beloved of us all, the Leader of your Lordships' House. And I for one, should deeply regret it if, in the event, the Minister of Town and Country Planning should treat the Leader of your Lordships' House and such a venerated member of the Government in such a cavalier manner. The Minister of Food in the Civic Restaurants Act, and the Minister of Health in the recent Housing Act, deferred to the urgent representations of the Leader of your Lordships' House and conceded the point. They why should not the Minister of Town and Country Planning meet us in the same way and thus support his own colleagues? If such a restriction was wise in the case of civic restaurants and municipal housing schemes, there is an even stronger case for its application in national parks where young people especially will congregate.
Only last week your Lordships had a two-days' debate on the economic situation and the dire need for economy. I was unfortunately absent on that occasion owing to two long-standing engagements in the provinces. What is the good of going on talking about economy if, at the same time, you go on increasing the incentives to needless expenditure? In the economic debate in the other House the week before last, according to the House of Commons Hansard of October 26, Column 1368, Mr. Eden said that:
"the average individual weekly expenditure on alcohol and tobacco is eleven shillings and sixpence a week. These figures ought to make all of us think, in whatever part of the House we happen to sit…it is clear that some of the money that is being dispensed in food subsidies is not in fact carrying out its real purpose but is subsidising the purchase of tobacco and alcohol."
And I would add that every year we are wasting from our food resources over 900,000 tons of cereals purchased with dollars; these cereals are used to produce intoxicants.
What is the good of talking about economy when that sort of thing not only continues but power is taken in such a Bill as this, not to limit the evil but positively to encourage the baneful habit of promiscuous drinking? Economy indeed! Why, it reminds me of the man who was addicted to drink and whose friends persuaded him to see a specialist, but they advised the specialist beforehand that it was no use telling him to give up drink. The specialist examined him and told him he could go on drinking as much as ever he could carry if he would then call for a dose of sarsaparilla; and then come back to see him in a fortnight's time. The poor man went back in a fortnight's time and the specialist asked him whether his prescription had been effective. "Well, no," replied the man, "not exactly, because the fact is that when I have drunk as much as I can carry, I can't even say sarsaparilla'."
Even if the Government preach economy, by this Bill they certainly are not encouraging others to practise it. Our bill is about £14 per head per year for every man, woman and child in our land, for this quite unnecessary and harmful luxury. If this waste were stopped the "gap" would soon be closed. But instead of seeking to slop it, the Government come forward with this Bill for the

495
provision of national parks, and couple with it more and more incentives to drink. Only last week, in reply to a question by my noble friend Lord Llewellin, the Lord Chancellor told us that the fines for road offences during the past three years totalled very nearly £1,000,000. How many of those offences were caused by over indulgence in drink? Why should the Government go out of their way to increase the facilities for drinking, as envisaged in this Bill?
This issue must be faced, and I invite your Lordships to show the Government, in the Division Lobby if necessary, how concerned we are on this most vital matter. However men may differ in the methods proposed for dealing with the evil of intemperance, none will dispute the havoc it works in our midst. Those who have fallen by the way—and we have all known them—were all moderate drinkers at the start. Why should the Government go out of their way to provide these additional facilities, without so much as restricting them to drinking with meals? The very nature of the countryside where these national parks will be situated means that the roads therein are likely to be narrow, winding and with occasional steep gradients. We are constantly being reminded of the extreme gravity of our road casualties; and the Highway Code lays extra emphasis upon the danger of even small quantities of alcohol to those in charge of motor vehicles. So strong, in fact, is the scientific and medical case against the drinking of intoxicants by motorists that nearly all public transport undertakings of the country insist that their drivers shall refrain from the use of intoxicants before going on duty and while on duty. Personally, I am convinced that the roads of our land would be much safer if motorists, motor cyclists and even pedestrians abstained altogether from the use of intoxicants. Even those of your Lordships who do not share my opinion on this point will doubtless concede that any use of intoxicants is less harmful when accompanied by a meal. That being so, I crave your support for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord should be grateful to the Government for
496
having provided him, at any rate, with an opportunity for delivering a very eloquent speech in support of his pet hobby; and no doubt the newspaper to which he referred will have about two columns of matter for its next edition. I wish I could tell the noble Lord, of whom I am very fond, that I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment. I cannot even tell him that, because this is really a different case from those to which he referred. There is no sort of similarity between a place of refreshment on a long walk on the top of the Pennines and a civic restaurant on a new housing estate or in a new town, which is primarily set up for the purpose of providing meals. In the first case a glass of beer is an incidental to the rambler who has been walking under a hot July sun for many hours and who carries his food with him in his rucksack. It means a great deal to him to come to a wayside inn where he can enjoy a glass of beer. A glass of beer is much more enjoyable under those conditions than under any others, so far as my personal knowledge of the matter goes. I feel rather aggrieved that the noble Lord should wish to deprive me of the opportunity of getting a glass of beer in those circumstances without having to put my hand in my pocket and perhaps provide five shillings for a meal at the same time. What he is saying in effect is that the rambler shall not have his glass of beer unless he carries it with him—and it will be a very heavy addition to his equipment—or that, even if he brings his own sandwiches, he must buy a meal as well.
I suggest to your Lordships that there is no sort of resemblance between the earlier cases to which the noble Lord referred. Also this facility is not intended for the motorists—the motorists can always get to a public-house where at the proper time the refreshment is available; it is intended for the ramblers in out of the way places where facilities are not already in existence. I appreciate the noble Lord's position. It is a matter of principle with him that nobody should be allowed to have alcohol if it can possibly be prevented. He is a temperance fiend, if so charming a member of your Lordships' House will allow me to use that expression about him. To other noble Lords who do not share this, shall I say, obsession which the noble Lord has, surely there is little to be said in favour

497
of this Amendment. From the point of view of the purveyors of beer and alcoholic beverages generally, surely to prevent the supply of beer to ramblers in these places and under these conditions, is just cutting off their noses to spite their faces. If the noble Lord does press his Amendment to a Division, I hope your Lordships will reject it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: At first blush it seemed as though three successive Ministers were each trying to do the same thing in a different Bill. First of all, as your Lordships will remember, we had this point in the Civic Restaurants Bill, in regard to places that were built so that a man could take his wife and family for a meal. There was no thought in the minds of those who started civic restaurants (of which I was one) that they should be turned into drinking places. When the Bill to make the British restaurants permanent under the title of civic restaurants was brought in this provision was introduced by the Minister of Food. Your Lordships will remember that we had discussions about it in this House, and eventually we came to the compromise decision that drink should be served only with meals. Then, last summer, we had the Housing Bill (now the Housing Act) and there again it was contemplated setting up canteens in some of these large blocks of flats for the benefit of the people who lived in them. Once again it was suggested from this side of the House that if a justices' licence were granted, it should be granted only for drinks to be supplied with meals. Now we have a different Minister (in fact, as I have already indicated to your Lordships, there are eight of them concerned) who seeks to start these restaurants and asks that the local authorities shall have power to serve drinks, whether or not with meals, provided, of course, they get a justices' licence.
There is a distinction, as the noble Lord has said—although in most of these country districts I think it will be found that there is a public-house where a glass of beer can be obtained. Perhaps the best course would be for us to wait and see what happens eventually on the Amendment which your Lordships lave just passed. If that Amendment remained in the Bill it would ensure that these local planning authorities would not attempt to
498
set up these public-houses—for that is what they would be—if the accommodation were already there or if there were somebody able and willing to provide it. I should have thought that in this case we should adopt the words of Mr. Asquith, "Wait and see," until the next stage of the Bill, whether the Government will accept as a permanent Amendment to the Bill the previous Amendment carried by the Committee to-day. If that were done, there would be less need for the Amendment upon which I am speaking at the present moment. If that were not the course adopted by the Government, it might well be that we should insist here—as we did on the Civic Restaurants Act and the Housing Act—that some Amendment: of this sort should be put in. I think we might look at it from that point of view, because if we can we all want this Bill to go through with as few disagreements between the two Houses as possible, and on this one might well come to some kind of compromise. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, myself, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, could consider this point further between now and the Report stage of the Bill. If that is agreeable to the noble Viscount, I suggest that it might avoid a Division on this Amendment now.
LORD ROCHESTER: I frankly admit that I am not prepared to rest upon a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise at a further stage of this Bill. I feel that this is a matter of principle. It has been before your Lordships twice before, and I cannot see the finesse and distinction to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred. I feel very strongly that we ought to emphasise our intention that these licences should be restricted. After all is said and done, this House is an integral part of this Parliament. I would remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord De La Warr said only the day before yesterday:
"We are still living, more or less, under a Parliamentary system"
We ought to decide this issue now, and not rely upon a possibility that hereafter some concession may or may not be made.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was suggesting that at some stage we should decide it, but that we might possibly have talks

499
together between now and the next stage before taking a final decision.
LORD ROCHESTER: On that I can only make an appeal to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and ask whether he is prepared to help us on this point as he has done on two previous occasions. I should be willing to enter into such a conference, but I do not want to withdraw this Amendment. The noble Viscount brought his influence to bear upon the Minister before, and I cannot help believing that if he did the same now we should secure some concession. Unless the noble Viscount can see his way to give us an undertaking in that spirit, I shall ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think it is accepted that, apart from the principles to which the noble Lord adheres—which with all respect—there is a difference between this case and the Civic Restaurant and Housing Acts, because they were concerned with centres of population. This Bill is concerned with remote places. The House has already inserted one Amendment in the Bill, which of course will have to be considered. If the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his Amendment for the time being —without prejudice, of course, to freedom of action at a later stage—I will go into conference with him and the Minister to see whether we can arrange any accommodation between now and the Report stage. If he will leave it at that, I will do the best I can.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. May I ask one question? Does that also cover my Amendment in identical words to Clause 54, where it is even more important because that deals with long distances?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The same principle covers both Amendments.
LORD ROCHESTER: Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation
(5) Before exercising any power conferred by or under this section an authority shall consult with such other authorities, being authorities
500
which under any enactment have functions relating to the waterway in question, as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct.
LORD CARRINGTON: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. The point is almost exactly the same as in the first Amendment to Clause 12, upon which your Lordships have just divided. I hope the noble Lord will therefore treat it as consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, at end insert:
"Provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than the power of carrying out work) unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory facilities to the public for sailing, boating, bathing or fishing."—(Lord Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ESHER: Could I ask the Government why the excellent words in Clause 12:
"whether by the authority or by other persons"
have been left out of this clause? Apparently other persons are allowed to deal with meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places, but not with open-air recreation. What is the distinction?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: May I say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I think he is quite right? Although we cannot accept this Amendment, we can hardly resist it. As regards the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, at the moment I am unable to give him a specific reply, but I am having inquiries made.
3.48 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (5):

"(a) any river board or drainage authority by which any functions are exercisable in relation to the water-way in question or whose drainage works are affected, or likely to be affected, by the proposals of the authority; and

(b)"

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend, I have been asked to move his Amendments. If it is convenient, I would like to discuss this and

501
the next Amendment together, because although the points are slightly different the main argument is the same. As your Lordships know, this clause gives to the local planning authority wide powers for carrying out works to waterways, to improve the facilities for sailing, boating, bathing and fishing. I do not think anyone would try to minimise the importance of those recreational facilities, and we would all wish to encourage them in every way. But possibly the most important task of a river is to drain water from the land and to convey it as rapidly as possible to the sea. Under the River Boards Act, 1948, river boards were given a number of powers and responsibilities over rivers in their area, and most of the functions of local authorities as regards drainage were transferred to them.
If we examine Clause 13 of this Bill, we find that certain provisions are made for consultation between the various authorities concerned, but I think your Lordships will agree that the whole emphasis is on the power of the local planning authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly said when refusing an Amendment of mine to Clause 7, the area where river boards will be most affected will be the Norfolk Broads. That is a large and very important area. The Catchment Board Association are worried that the powers given under the 1948 Act may be lessened by the provisions of this clause, which might make it more difficult for them to carry out their heavy and important responsibilities; and this, apart from anything else, might prejudice the agriculture in the area. As your Lordships know, drainage is one of the essentials for efficient agriculture. They feel that if this Amendment could be accepted, it would in the first place, by specifying them by name as bodies to be consulted, emphasise the importance of that task; and secondly, by giving them the right to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture it would ensure that efficient drainage of the area could not be unduly prejudiced by amenity interests. Under this Bill as it stands, they would have to be consulted but, so far as I understand, they would have no definite grounds of objection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 2, after ("with") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I quite agree that it is convenient to deal with both these Amendments together. I think it is very undesirable to single out by naming them in the Bill any specific authorities to be consulted. I cannot accept this Amendment in its present form. With regard to the Amendment which follows, I should be prepared to accept it in principle if the wording could he looked at later.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I agree that it is very difficult to specify the particular authorities, but in this clause we are dealing entirely with rivers, and I should have thought that in that case the most important authority would be the river board.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No one doubts the importance of the authority. It is a question of the advisability of specifying authorities in the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps we could see the Amendment when we come to the Report stage, or before.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Agreements with Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves
16.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land as to which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest that it should he managed as a nature reserve, for securing that it shall be so managed.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner of the land is a consenting party thereto."
The noble Lord said: We now come to a part of the Bill which deals with nature reserves. This Amendment is a small one designed to clear up a certain confusion. It would appear that Clause 16 provides that an agreement to form

503
a nature reserve may be entered into between the owner and the lessee or occupier of land, so that it may be managed as a nature reserve. It seems to me that it requires an Amendment to provide that such an agreement should be entered into only with the consent of the owner, for as the clause is drafted it looks as if the occupier or lessee could enter into such an agreement without the owner's consent. The Amendment seeks to safeguard this position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Clydestnuir.)
LORD CHORLEY: We do not think there is any need for this Amendment. If the Amendment were passed it would derogate from the right which the lessee has under the terms of his lease. Under the terms of the lease, provided he is not breaking any covenant in the lease he can use the land in such a way as he thinks fit—provided of course, that he does not damage the land in such a way as to constitute what, in law, is called "waste." Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted it would in fact cut down the rights of the lessee. If it is desired that there should be an agreement with the lessee and the landlord, there is no reason why an agreement of that kind should not be entered into. I think the noble Lord will agree that this Amendment is really unnecessary.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It seems to me that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is right. What the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, says is no doubt true so far as it goes, but we are now dealing with the fauna and flora of Great Britain, and with the physical conditions under which they live. The tenant may be quite willing to have rare birds, fauna or beasts destroyed in the course of the lease; but when he resumes occupation, either because the tenant will not pay his rent or because the lease has expired, the landlord may find that some of the interest in the land has totally disappeared.
LORD CHORLEY: The whole object of nature conservation is to maintain and protect these rare birds and not to destroy them.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am afraid that I cannot accept that as being a very
504
conclusive answer. Take the case of foxes. Foxes may destroy a great deal of the fauna. There are places where a landlord may prefer to have certain beasts preserved there, although the lessee or occupier may take a very different view. I think the landlord's interest should be considered.
LORD SALTOUN: I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will agree that the man who lets land has a right to receive it back in at least as good a condition as he let it. It is possible that he may get the land back overrun with vermin, which may mean an enormous expense —the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will know that what I am saying is true. The owner may be put to enormous expense and yet not be able to exterminate the vermin.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Supposing that a particular nature conservancy authority thought that little owls were good things to have. That is not very far-fetched, because a very famous ornithologist, a member of your Lordships' House, introduced the horrible creatures into this country. Supposing that some nature authority with the same idea as the late Lord Lilford, who was a tremendously keen ornithologist, thought it a good thing to have a great number of little owls and the tenant did not mind whether there were little owls or not, would it or would not it be legitimate, under this clause as drawn, for the nature conservation authority and the tenant to agree to the protection of the little owls, however much and however rightly the landlord might object?
LORD CHORLEY: This is a point which has not been properly looked into. I am much obliged to the noble Lords for their observations. If the noble Lord opposite would agree to withdraw his Amendment, we may perhaps have consultations about it. It obviously raises difficult problems as between tenant and landlord which I had not quite appreciated.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: On that understanding, I will willingly withdraw my Amendment. My only desire is to make this part of the Bill more workable, because we all want to see nature reserves established, if they can be, without damage to the interests round about. I feel that this point requires further

505
examination. If the noble Lord will look into it, I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Byelaws for protection of nature reserves
20.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may, as respects land which is being managed as a nature reserve under an agreement entered into with them or land held by them which is being managed as a nature reserve, make byelaws for the protection of the reserve:
Provided that byelaws under this section shall not have effect as respects any land in a reserve unless a declaration under the last foregoing section is in force declaring that the land is being managed as a nature reserve and notice of the declaration has been published in pursuance of that section.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, byelaws under this section—
(b) may prohibit or restrict the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures of any description in a nature reserve, the taking of, or interference with, vegetation of any description in a nature reserve, or the doing of anything therein which will interfere with the soil or damage Any object in the reserve;
(c) may prohibit or restrict the shooting of birds or of birds of any description within such area surrounding or adjoining a nature reserve (whether the area be of land or of sea) as appears to the Nature Conservancy requisite for the protection of the reserve;
4.2 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1) to add to the proviso:
"(ii) that bylaws under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect unless and until there has been consultation between the Nature Conservancy and the county agricultural committee or committees in whose area the nature reserve is situated."
The noble Lord said: I am very worried about much the same matter as my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir. Under Clause 20, subsection (2), paragraphs (a) and (b), the Nature Conservancy may make bylaws affecting bird and animal life in the area. My Amendment seeks to ensure that agricultural interests shall be consulted before such bylaws are made and that the whole of the surrounding district shall be taken into account as well as the conservancy area itself. Surely we do not want to have a nature conservancy area which is merely a vermin area. In another place an Amendment was
506
moved to the effect that agricultural interests should be taken into account. The term "agricultural interests" was referred to by the Minister as being too indefinite a term. I am suggesting inserting "county agricultural committee," which is not at all vague; it is specific. The county agricultural committees, after all, do represent the agricultural community. I sometimes think that the Government in the last four years have set up so many committees, commissions, boards and authorities that they forget what they are all for, and there is no co-ordination between them. This seems to be a good way of achieving co-ordination, and I hope that the noble Lord opposite will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 47, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD HARLECH: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that it appears to me on reading this clause as a whole and these words in connection with it that the whole point of the clause it to prohibit and restrict? If we have a nature reserve, particularly a nature reserve where there is a rare species, it will not do merely to prohibit; there will have to be power in the Conservancy to destroy—that is to say, to destroy the noxious species which will exterminate what you wish to preserve. There is too much negative in this clause as it stands, and not enough positive power to preserve that which you wish to preserve. At some earlier stage of this Bill I gave an example of North Wales, where for a short time in the year, only in the spring, the ruddy sheldrake, the largest British duck, comes annually for its nesting. We do not find it anywhere else. If we do not take good care when it is nesting to preserve it from molestation, either by foxes or by other things, we shall not preserve the breeding ground of a species that is becoming increasingly rare and which ought to be preserved.
LORD CHORLEY: The whole object of the Nature Conservancy, in fact, is to carry out the exact project which the noble Lord has just mentioned. The power to make bylaws to which he has referred, which is conferred in Clause 20, is quite general in character, and the negative ones which he has mentioned are by no means the only ones which the

507
Nature Conservancy can frame. There is no difference between us in respect of the objective that we have in view, but I feel that there is no need to have this provision as part of the Bill. The noble Lord can be assured that the Nature Conservancy have every intention of keeping down pests and vermin of all kinds. In fact, the whole object of their having these reserves is to do that and to maintain the rarer creatures which are there. Moreover, as all these bylaws have to be confirmed by the Home Secretary, they have under the procedure in the Local Government Act, 1933, to be advertised in the ordinary way, so that everybody may know what is going to happen. The Nature Conservancy will take the greatest care to maintain the closest association with the agricultural interests in the particular counties where the reserves are located. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no actual difficulty in securing by administrative means the object which he has in view.
EARL DE LA WARR: Who appoints the Nature Conservancy?
LORD CHORLEY: It is appointed by the Lord President.
LORD CRANWORTH: In spite of the answer given by the noble Lord, and in spite of the close proximity of my noble friend, Lord Radnor—because I am one of those who live close to one of the forests that he has produced and I am suffering severely from that proximity—I should like to support this Amendment. I am getting used to the depredations of pigeons, jays and magpies in their dozens, but it does not stop at that. A year or two ago I took part in a shoot in which a portion of the forest was driven out and, after the usual small vermin, there came out of it six foxes, three varieties of deer—roe deer, Japanese deer and fallow deer—and, believe it or not, a sounder of wild boar. Your Lordships may laugh, but you would laugh the other way if a sounder of wild boar came into your garden!
EARL DE LA WARR: Surely we can persuade the noble Lord to look again at this Amendment. After all, these gentlemen of the Nature Conservancy are appointed by the Lord President. I have no doubt they are excellent people, but they are appointed by reason of their
508
interest in the preservation of certain animals which may be of tremendous interest ornithologically, and so forth, but may not necessarily be anything but harmful to the interests of agriculture. Surely it is reasonable, when there is this power to make certain bylaws, that those bylaws should be discussed with the agricultural executive committee. It is really asking very little. The noble Lord opposite always expects us to be satisfied with assurances that he is certain that the body which is being set up will always do the reasonable thing, and so on. Why not put it into the Bill? People are genuinely and rightly disturbed on this matter. From his own point of view, having regard to the reception given to this proposal by the general public and the farming community, it would be wise to give the matter further consideration.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am all in favour of a nature conservancy, but there is great force in the Amendment. I will add another illustration to those which have already been given—I refer to something that has occurred in Australia and which was described in a paragraph that some of your Lordships may have seen in The Times of two or three days ago. It appears that in the interests of nature preservation shooting of the emu is forbidden, and when in a certain district of Australia a considerable number of emus, having escaped from their natural habitat —the crossword puzzle—trampled down considerable areas of wheat, the farmers found themselves prevented by law from taking any measures for their own protection.
LORD CHORLEY: Heaven forbid that I should do anything to prevent the emu being put back into its proper habitat! My impression is that the Minister of Agriculture has been consulted about this matter, though I am not absolutely clear about it—
EARL DE LA WARR: Surely thenoble Lord knows what consultation he has had with other Departments.
LORD CHORLEY: What I should like to do, if the noble Earl would allow me, is to take this clause back and to have further discussions about it. I am anxious to help the noble Earl. I wish he would not try and jump on me in this way; I am doing my best to assist him. I hope

509
the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment on the basis that we will look at it, without, of course, giving him any undertaking.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the noble Lord add this? He said about an earlier Amendment that there should be consultation; and he said quite frankly that not only was he getting out of his depth but that he did not think even the posse of the Ministers whose names appear on the back of the Bill had fully considered it. I suggest that when they have the chance of considering it, all these clauses (Clauses 13 to 20), which include and affect agricultural committees and the curious nature body about which I have not heard before, should form the subject of a round-table conference representing both sides of the House and also people who know something about these things. We all want to preserve the right kind of birds and we all want to destroy vermin, but it is important to insert the right clauses into this measure. I am certain that practical people sitting round the table with my noble friend, Lord Macdonald, would soon draw up a sensible set of clauses to take the place of those now in the Bill, which it is admitted have a good intention but have not been fully considered.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: I accept the suggestion of the noble Viscount, but I think it should he limited to those interested in this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I agree.
LORD HAWKE: Does that include the nature conservancy, who might be asked what sounders of wild boar might be?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lords opposite. For the second time in three days I think the second speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has been better than his first.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2) (b), after the first "reserve" to insert
"the taking, destruction or disturbance of eggs of any such creature."
The noble Lord said: I think the Committee will agree that this is a useful Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, aftet ("reserve") insert the said new words.—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT MAUCHAM: May I say a word in regard to a small matter about which I am not sure? Subsection (2) (d) says that the bylaws may contain provisions to prohibit the depositing of rubbish and the leaving of litter. I am not sure that that includes a bottle which has not yet been broken. Nothing is more offensive when one is out walking in the country than to see a bottle which has once been usefully employed in containing beer left there unharmed but likely to be broken by somebody else—in which case, of course, it becomes rubbish. An unbroken bottle may not be rubbish, and I suggest that the noble Lord should consider whether or not, after the word "rubbish," he should include the words "including bottles."
LORD CHORLEY: I will have a look at that. I am sure my noble friend, Lord Rochester, if he were here, would regard a bottle as rubbish whether it were full, empty or broken.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:
".It shall be the duty of the Nature Conservancy so to preserve the balance of fauna and flora in a nature reserve that damage shall not be suffered by contiguous or adjacent land."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of peculiar interest to Scotland, although it refers to all parts of the United Kingdom. It is akin to the problem which was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington and, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is prepared to take back this Part of the Bill and to reconsider it, I will limit my observations.
I am not sure whether in my Amendments I have quite the correct words to achieve the object I desire, for I am concerned not about the very rare and precious birds and animals, such as the golden eagle, the wild cat or the badger, but about the common pests, such as The stoat, the weasel and the hooded

511
crow. The Committee have already given force to the point that these nature reserves, desirable though they may be, should not be allowed to interfere with the livelihood of those who have lands immediately adjacent. I suggest that in any conference that is held, Scottish interests should be remembered and that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland should be represented, because I am sure that we shall have in Scotland, areas which are suitable for the formation of nature reserves. I will not elaborate the point at the present time because of the noble Lord's agreement to look into the whole question, but I should like his assurance that my words, or something which secures the same object, will be the subject of careful consideration when the matter is discussed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Clydesmuir.)
LORD WINSTER: In a word I would like to mention one pest that I hope will receive consideration in this matter—namely, that vile rat, the grey squirrel. I am not sure who is responsible for its introduction into this country. I hope that that crime does not also lie at the door of Lord Lilford who introduced the small owl.
LORD HARLECH: It was the Duke of Bedford.
LORD WINSTER: At all events, it is indeed a vile and most destructive animal, and I hope that it may also receive attention in connection with this clause.
LORD CHORLEY: I have taken part in many controversies on the subject of the Second Chamber, but I have never before heard shots fired at it within its own walls. The noble Lord is right in saying that the substance of this Amendment comes within the undertaking which my noble friend gave. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to bring the balance of nature into a Statute but no doubt during the discussions which we are to have it will be possible to look at the matter and see whether it can be effectively dealt with.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Establishment of nature reserves by local authorities]:
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is preparatory to that which comes immediately afterwards, and with the permission of the Committee I will take them together. The Amendments require that in connection with the establishment of a local nature reserve there should be consultation between the Conservancy and the local authorities, both at the time of the setting-up of the reserve and afterwards. What is wanted is that the Conservancy should be able to keep an eye on the day-to-day running of the reserve so as to ensure—and this is the very point which your Lordships have in mind—that it should not become a breeding ground for pests. There has been a certain amount of disagreement between representatives of the county councils and the Conservancy as to the best method of achieving this object, and as a result, the words in the Amendment have been agreed as the most satisfactory compromise between the interests involved. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 2, leave out from ("power") to ("to").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD SALTOUN: If the noble Lord thinks it worth while to insert this Amendment here—and I entirely agree—does he not consider that on the same principle he should insert the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Carrington at its appropriate place? It seems to me that if it is proper to provide for consultations under this Part of the Bill it is proper that similar provision should go in at the other place.
LORD CHORLEY: This is the second of the two Amendments to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 32, at end insert:
("() A local authority shall exercise their functions under this Part of this Act in consultation with the Nature Conservancy.") —(Lord Charley.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Application of Part III to Scotland
26. In the application of this Part of this Act to Scotland the expressions "owner" and "limited owner" have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act. 1947.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words after "Scotland" and to insert:
"the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) the expressions 'owner' and 'limited owner' have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947;

(b) Section twenty-four shall read as it in subsection (1) thereof there were added after the words 'Lord President of the Council' the words 'and the Secretary of State for Scotland';

(c) a declaration made by the Nature Conservancy under section nineteen of this Part of this Act shall be registered in the Register of Sasines for the area in which the land to which such declaration relates is situate."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to Scotland only. There are three paragraphs. The first repeats what is already in the Bill; the second raises a point of principle to which I will return in a moment, and the third suggests a change which may only be necessary for the correct working of the Bill—namely, that declarations forming nature reserves in Scotland should be registered in the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh. Now the second paragraph, paragraph (b), as I have said, raises a point of principle, and I should like to say a word or two upon it. It seeks to ensure that when a report is made on the desirability of forming a nature reserve, that report should go to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as to the Lord President of the Council. I note that as the Amendment is framed, all such reports would go to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as to the Lord President of the Council. I shall he modest, however, and suggest that only reports affecting Scotland should go to the Secretary of State, for we do not want to interfere in English affairs. I submit that it would seem proper that a report recommending the formation of a nature reserve in Scotland should go to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as to the Lord President of the Council.
Your Lordships will be aware that there is strong national feeling in Scotland, and, at the present time, it is very active, having been stimulated to some extent by
514
recent events. At a large gathering held in Edinburgh the other day, a covenant was signed demanding a Parliament in Edinburgh. It would. of course, be going too far to discuss such a matter in connection with this Bill, but, nevertheless, it is on account of the centralisation of Scottish business in Landon that this feeling is growing. Why should not Scottish golden eagles, Scottish wild cats and rare Scottish birds and animals generally, he cared for by their own Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than by the Lord Preside it of the Council? It is true that the Secretary of, State for Scotland is a member of the Privy Council Committee over which the Lord President presides, and as a member he would no doubt he taken into account in the consideration of these reports, but it would be in line with Scottish sentiment if, in this Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland were specifically mentioned as being one of those receiving reports recommending the formation of nature reserves in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, leave out from the beginning of line 36 to end of line 37, and insert the said new words.—(Lord (Clydesmuir.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir. I cannot understand how the Government have put into the Bill what appears at this point. Surely in the last two or three years they have observed the strong feeling which exists in Scotland with regard to all these matters concerning local administration in that country. In the last two or three years it has been very difficult for Scotsmen who come south of the Border to resist joining what is called the Scottish Home Rule Movement. It is growing stronger and stronger, and it seems to me quite wrong and utterly ridiculous on the part of the Government, knowing of these things as they must in view of the number of questions that have been asked and the speeches that have been made about them both in this place and in another place, that they should insert, a passage of this kind in this Bill.
Obviously, in the past, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been the instrument for dealing with such affairs in Scotland. Why omit him now and place this business solely in the hands of the

515
Lord President of the Council, who has nothing directly to do with Scotland? I wish to support my noble friend's Amendment very strongly indeed. I hope the Government will not give us another assurance to the effect that, of course, the Lord President of the Council will recognise Scottish feeling, and all that sort of thing. How are we to know, even if we are given that assurance, that the Lord President of the Council will be in office on March 15, 1950? After the General Election, we may have another Lord President of the Council. I urge very strongly that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government and adopted.
LORD SALTOUN: I, too, hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I do not suppose it matters two-pence to them which of the two parties has the final word in this matter. Of course, it is a convenient opportunity of making a concession which will be welcome. A further argument which I should like to impress upon the Government is, I suggest, entirely in line with their policy in this matter. It is clear that the person who has the final word in these matters should be someone who is as near as possible and has as close an acquaintance as possible with the nature of the country and its flora and fauna. The Secretary of State for Scotland is clearly going to have a much better idea of these questions in Scotland than is someone who, perhaps, has never been north of the Border in his life.
LORD CHORLEY: I naturally pay great respect to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, supported as he is by so much fierce eloquence from members of the Committee who hail from the other side of the Border, and it is with considerable diffidence that I reply. The answer is, of course, that the Lord President of the Council is not an English Minister at all. The nature conservancy is a conservancy which covers the whole of Great Britain. It is responsible to the Privy Council Committee of the Lord President, and the Lord President is, therefore, responsible for the whole of Great Britain in respect of this matter. It would really be quite wrong that these reports should go to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Secretary of State for
516
Scotland is a member of the Privy Council Committee and therefore receives the reports in any case. I am sure that that should be sufficient. However much the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, may deplore logicality on the part of the English, we always expect Scotsmen to have regard to logicality, and from the point of view of logic the provision in the Bill as it stands is perfectly right.
The other point to which the noble Lord referred, though he did not go into detail, was registration. That is an exceedingly technical matter, and I am advised that the proposal which he makes is not only unnecessary but would lead to considerable difficulties in the way in which the Register is conducted. Will your Lordships bear with me for a few minutes while I explain this? The object of the Amendment is to ensure that in dealings in land, those concerned shall know which restrictive conditions affecting the use of land have been imposed. Under the clause a declaration may say, for example, that there has been an agreement that the land should be managed as a nature reserve, or the Conservancy may purchase the land outright. Your Lordships have read the clause and I will not go through it in detail. Where there is an agreement the object of the Amendment has already been met by the application under Clause 16, (5) (c) of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Forestry Act, 1947; that places an agreement with the Conservancy in the same position as a forestry dedication agreement, and provides that the agreement may be recorded in the appropriate Register of Sasines. When it has been recorded in that way it is unnecessary also to record a declaration by the Conservancy that land is subject to an agreement. In the other case, where land is acquired by the Conservancy, the conveyance is in their own favour. They become the owners, and they would record the transaction in the Register in the ordinary way, as is always done when there is a conveyance to a purchaser; and it is therefore unnecessary to make a declaration under Clause 19. I hope the noble Lord will agree that his proposal is not really necessary.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: If I agree with the noble Lord that the point regarding registration appears to be adequately covered and do not press that further, I am bound to say that I feel

517
unhappy about the other part of his answer relating to the Secretary of State for. Scotland. I agree that constitutionally the noble Lord is right about the Lord President: He is a United Kingdom Minister, and in matters which are his concern he is equally engaged in Scotland as in England and Wales. But the Secretary of State for Scotland has a unique and unexampled knowledge of Scottish conditions, particularly of agriculture, as the Minister responsible for agriculture in that country. We are entering into a new experiment here—the formation of nature reserves in Scotland. It is an interesting and desirable experiment but none the less is something new on the scale envisaged. It seems to me desirable, and in line with Scottish sentiment at the present time, that Scotland's own Minister should he more closely brought into this question. The formation of these reserves should be his concern. I do not propose to ask the House to divide on this matter, but I am profoundly unhappy at the reply that I have received, which I do not think will be in accordance with the feeling in Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am sorry the noble Lord is not going to divide, because I would have gladly followed him into the Lobby. I wish to say again that I think the Government are making a grave mistake in not accepting this Amendment. It can only add unnecessary fuel to the fire which already exists in Scotland. As my noble friend has said, the Secretary of State for Scotland looks after agriculture and many other questions with which this Bill will be concerned.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: He is the biggest land owner in Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Why, therefore, should these functions be taken away from him now in an experiment of a wide nature, about which we do not really know the answers to-day? Why should these functions be taken from him now and handed over to someone down here, however capable he may be in dealing with these matters in England? I venture to ask the noble Lord whether he will consider taking this clause back to the Minister and expressing to him the strong feeling existing amongst Scotsmen in this House, and the very strong feeling there will be to-morrow morning in Scotland when the report of this debate is read
518
—the noble Lord laughs, but it is no laughing matter; this is a very serious matter. I should like him to go through the length and breadth of Scotland and find out what the feeling is on this matter and not sit on that Bench laughing. That will not help. I suggest to him that, in the light of the strong national feeling that there is on this matter, or will be, when the question has been duly considered in Scotland, he should take it back to the Minister for reconsideration.
LORD SALTOUN: It has been the practice of the Secretary of State for Scotland to travel about Scotland a great deal and see things on the ground. Since the noble Lord has refused my noble friend's suggestion, will he undertake that the Lord President will likewise trawl a great deal about Scotland to see things on the ground?
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope the noble Lord will put it down again on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Surveys of public paths, etc., and preparation of draft maps and statements
(4) An authority by whom a draft map is prepared as aforesaid shall annex thereto a statement specifying the relevant date and containing, as respects any public path or other way shown thereon in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, such particulars appearing to the authority to be reasonably alleged as to the position and width thereof, or as to any limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way thereover, as in the 'opinion of the authority it is expedient to record in the statement.
(6) In this Part of this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say,—
"horse" includes pony, ass and mule, and "horseback" shall be construed accordingly;
4.38 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (4) after "section" to insert:
"a statement setting out in general terms the grounds upon which it is alleged that such public path or other way subsists and"

519
The noble Lord said: This is a simple point. Under Clause 27, county councils have to prepare a map showing the rights of way, and under subsection (4) they have to annex to that map a statement setting out
"such particulars appearing to the authority to be reasonably alleged as to the position and width thereof, or as to any limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way there-over, as in the opinion of the authority it is expedient to record in the statement."
In this statement, therefore, county councils are expected to give a considerable amount of detail. All I suggest in my Amendment is that at the same time the county councils should make a short statement of the grounds on which they alleged that a right of way exists. If this were done it would save a lot of trouble and expense to a large number of people, for anybody who discovered that there was a right of way over his land, or anybody interested in the land who wanted to be quite clear about a right of way, could 20 to the county council offices and look at the map and then he would see the grounds on which it was alleged that the right of way existed. I do not mean that there should be a long statement showing all the authorities, but I suggest that there should be just the grounds alleged, so that the owner or interested party could decide whether or not the right of way should be disputed. The noble Lord will probably say that if anybody does dispute the right of way the county council will at that stage have to produce all the evidence, but it seems to me that if this Amendment were to be inserted it would save a great deal of trouble and many unnecessary inquiries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, after ("section") insert the said words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I support my noble friend in this Amendment, simply in the interests of making the identification of rights of way easier from the point of view of the owner? There is a large number of small owners who have no knowledge of where to seek for verification of any statement made by a public authority on this sort of matter. So far as the owners are concerned a great many rights of way have their origins lost in the mists of time. The owners have no particular knowledge
520
about those origins beyond the fact that they occasionally go along the path and believe there is a right of way. As a matter of fact, by far the larger number of genuine rights of way go back to the enclosure awards and the maps attaching to them, or to old tithe awards, documents which are in the hands of the local authorities but about which a great many people know nothing at all. If the local authority said that they were basing their evidence on such documents, the owners concerned would then know that it was a reasonable claim or could go to the office and find the exact documents which would assure them that the claim was right and that they should give way. It may save both owners and public authorities a great deal of time.
4.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: This is the sort of Amendment which at first sight appears to be very helpful, but I think when one looks at it in a little more detail one finds that so far from saving a great deal of expense and trouble it has exactly the opposite effect. Quite 90 per cent. of these footpaths and rights of way give rise to no sort of difficulty at all; they are clear to the surveyor and he marks out what he sees and what he is told are rights of way. It is only when disputes arise that the question whether they are really rights of way and how they arose has to be gone into. That happens in a minute proportion of cases. A right of way may arise, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, in all sorts of different ways—by dedication, by prescription, by enclosure, by usage —and if in every case the surveyor had to satisfy himself which of those was the way in which the right arose before he made a mark on his map, it would lead to exactly the sort of waste of time and expense to which the noble Lord referred.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Is he suggesting that the local authority surveyor is going to mark rights of way on a map, without evidence to prove that they are rights of way?
LORD CHORLEY: I imagine that when the surveyor sees a perfectly well defined path which it is known that everybody has used for a lifetime, he puts it down on the map—
VISCOUNT EUIBANK: It may have been enclosed a year before.
LORD CHORLEY: If he had in every case to go into the precise legal origin of it (and I can tell the noble Lord from considerable experience of these cases while practising at the Bar that they are exceedingly complicated and difficult) the surveyor's offices would break down under the burden. Surely, if the owner objects to the marking he can go to the surveyor and ask, and then at that later stage, before there is any question of legal proceedings, he can be informed what the case is, and the tithe award or other document to which Lord Radnor has referred can be produced to him. I think the suggestion which Lord Radnor has made is very reasonable. I am quite sure that there would be no difficulty at all in producing those documents to the owner at that stage, which is a considerably later stage than that with which this Amendment deals. That discussion at the later stage would be of great value and might well avoid expense and litigation.
EARL HOWE: Is the surveyor's decision final?
LORD CHORLEY: Not in the slightest degree. The surveyor simply puts the path on the map, and the landowner is entitled to object. The surveyor cannot possibly give a final decision on the matter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have had a certain amount to do with this matter in my county which is full of footpaths, and we have never had a case yet where a map has been marked in a purely arbitrary fashion and it has been said, "That is a footpath." If they are already there, then they will continue to be there; but the surveyors have always at least asked the interested parties whether or not they agreed before they marked the maps. If it is to be done without that inquiry, I think it will be a most dangerous thing.
LORD CHORLEY: The surveyors may ask the owner or a farmer or somebody else about it. It may very well be that somebody, under a settlement, has a claim which he is entitled to put forward. So far as my experience goes, the surveyors adopt a very reasonable attitude in regard to these matters. I suggest that
522
the Amendment would put upon the surveyors an intolerable burden. They are hard pressed as it is. Some such suggestion as Lord Radnor has made for the production of tithe awards, and that sort of thing, is a very different matter and might very well produce an alternative way of handling the problem.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I understand my noble friend's Amendment aright, all it would involve would be that when stating that such-an-such was a right of way there should be in brackets after it. "Tithe award for such-and-such a parish, dated so-and-so", or something of that sort. That is all that is needed.
LORD CHORLEY: That might be a feasible thing in quite a number of cases, but the Amendment would make it obligatory in all cases to produce something of that kind. That, I suggest, would be quite impracticable in the circumstances of these cases.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Surely, there ought to be some provision that the owner of the property should receive notice that the surveyor proposes to mark on the county map a footpath on his property, because otherwise the matter might escape his notice.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in this matter, that as the Amendment stands it would impose an intolerable burden upon local authorities who are already pretty hard pressed. My county council have already started a special branch with a special staff to deal with this matter. I very much object to that because it costs the ratepayers money, and I do not want anything added to the burden which they already bear. I could not myself support this Amendment.
LORD GIFFORD: I do not see that this is putting any particular burden on the surveyor, because he has to put in general terms the grounds of the rights alleged for the existence of such a footpath or right of way. If he has no documents such as a tithe document he simply puts something like "general usage," but if he has better written evidence he puts that in. Otherwise he puts "general usage" or some such general remark, and the owner, if he does not agree, can fight it.
EARL DE LA WARR: There does seem to be a good deal of misgiving about this matter and, I think, a good deal of disagreement—and non-Party disagreement. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow this point to be looked at again, so that we can be sure that we are proceeding on the right lines.
LORD CHORLEY: We are rather piling up points for the Report stage, but if the noble Lord wishes it to be looked at again, I am quite prepared for that to be done.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (6) after "ass" to insert "hinny." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 11, after ("ass") insert ("hinny").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, as the male includes the female. I am told that in certain parts of the country the word "hinny" is a well-known term of endearment. I do not know whether the noble Lord would wish to have it inserted in the Bill on that basis.
LORD HARLECH: Does "mule" include "hinny"?
LORD MERTHYR: I am surprised that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. When he looked at his dictionary he obviously looked at the wrong page. If he looks at The Oxford Dictionary he will see that, strictly, the word "mule" does not include "hinny," which is the opposite of a mule. I know that, loosely and improperly, "mule" is used in a wider sense which does include "hinny," but I submit that it is not a fit use of language for an Act of Parliament. I may say that I have taken this precedent from another Act of Parliament to which your Lordships gave a Third Reading only last week. There the word "hinny" was defined, as I think it ought to be in this Bill. I am sure that all your Lordships fully understand the meaning of the word and I need not waste time by enlarging upon it. Strictly speaking, if you put in "mule" you must
524
also put in "hinny," because the one does not include the other—I am not jesting.
LORD CHORLEY: I can assure the noble Lord that the word "mule" as used in numerous Acts of Parliament does include "hinny." If between now and the Report stage the noble Lord can show me some instances where that is not so I shall naturally be glad to look at the matter again.
LORD MERTHYR: I do not want to waste time. If the noble Lord will come to the library with me afterwards and look at the dictionary I hope to be able to satisfy him. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Representations and objections as to draft maps and statements
29.—(1) On completing the preparation of a draft map and statement the surveying authority shall notify the Minister and shall cause notice of the preparation thereof, and of places where copies thereof may be inspected at all reasonable hours, and of the time (not being less than three months) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the draft map and statement may be made to the authority, to he published in the London Gazette and in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority.
(2) If any representation or objection is duly made to the surveying authority as to anything contained in or omitted from the draft map and statement, the authority, after considering the representation or objection and affording to the person by whom it was made an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the authority for the purpose, shall determine what (if any) modification of the particulars contained in the draft map and statement appears to the authority to be requisite in consequence thereof, and shall serve notice of their determination on the person by whom the representation or objection was made.
4.53 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "six months" for "three months." The noble Lord said: I venture to say that this is an Amendment of some substance. To my personal knowledge, the Hobhouse Committee, of which I was a member, spent a great deal of time in threshing out a timetable which should be used for the preparation of these various maps, and we

525
argued the case from all angles. The result of that is shown in paragraph 34 on page 9 of the Hobhouse Report. The whole programme was to take four years. Your Lordships will see that the fifth out of the six periods within which each stage should be completed gives an interval of six months from the deposit of the draft map. I know that the Hobhouse Committee had weighty reasons for coming to this period of six months; in fact, I think I am right in saying that some members felt it should be more—the Committee will judge that on its own merits, of course. But quite apart from that, I do not think it reasonable to ask the public, which includes all the land owners, to deal with this matter in such a short time. After all, those vitally interested may be ill in hospital, or they may be abroad; there are various reasons why it may be necessary to take more than three months to put down an objection. I would remind the Committee that this is not something that will be repeated: this is a once-and-for-all piece of work. When you are preparing a draft map and a schedule of highways, which, in theory at any rate, is to last for all time, surely six months is not too long a time to take over this important part of the work. It is a question of degree, and I think there is a strong case for giving the objectors six months instead of three months, as the Hobhouse Committee decided after such great care. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 11, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: When the Bill was first introduced in another place the term was twenty-eight days. An Amendment was then accepted by my right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning to increase the twenty-eight days to three months. Now the noble Lord suggests that the three months should be increased to six months. I do not think he has made out a case to-day to show that it should be six months, but personally I think there is something to be said for reconsideration of the period of three months. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be agreeable to further discussion with me on the matter. I would ask him to agree to something less than six months. We do not want to delay the proceedings too long. We have
526
come from one month to three months, and we may go a little higher. I cannot accept six months, but if the noble Lord agrees to a consultation we may be able to agree to something longer than three months.
LORD HAWKE: I think the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Merthyr, are going into this conference in the belief that they are giving time to objectors. As I read it they are giving time to representers; and I think representers do need more time than objectors. Public opinion moves extremely slowly in some of these county places, and if a footpath has been omitted from a map it will take a long time before the fact will percolate down to the oldest inhabitant; he will scratch his head and drink many pints before he discovers exactly where the footpath lay. I suggest that six months is not too long a period, from the point of view of the representers.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We all want this to be done accurately. I should have thought that three months was not long enough. I am no great judge of what length of time there should be, but if at the end of the conference between the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Merthyr, five months, say, were agreed upon, that might be a suitable period. It is not a question on which we want to have any dispute. Obviously the Minister is trying to be reasonable about this, and I suggest that an agreed Amendment might be put down on the Report stage.
LORD MERTHYR: I entirely agree with Lord Hawke in pointing out that this affects both parties. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has set a trap for me into which I shall be glad to walk. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "what (if any) modification" and to insert "whether or not any alteration." The noble Earl said: I have down three Amendments to this clause and they all relate to the maps which are to be prepared showing footpaths, bridleways and roads used as public footpaths. Clause 29 lays down the initial procedure for the preparation of maps and a statement by the surveying authority. The ultimate object of these maps is to establish rights of way. The maps then have

527
to go through three stages. There is the draft map and statement; there is the provisional map and statement, and there is the definitive map and statement. Clause 29 is concerned only with the draft map and statement. The interests of transport users in connection with these maps and statements centre upon one particular category of road to be marked thereon—namely, the "road used as a public path." The definition of a "road used as a public path" appears in Clause 27 on page 20. The definition is as follows:
"'road used as a public path' means a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths or bridleways are so used."
Now if the surveying authority is of opinion that a highway is used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used, it could include the highway in that category on a draft map and, if there were need, to establish a right of way in regard to it.
Clause 29 provides that public notice shall be given of the preparation of a draft map and for representations or objections with regard to it. There is provision also for further public notice if the draft map is modified by the surveying authority as a result of representations, and so on. What it comes to is this. A right of appeal is given to an aggrieved person who may appeal with regard to anything omitted from the map and also with regard to anything added to the map; but no provision is made for an appeal by a person who is aggrieved by a refusal of the surveying authority to modify the draft map in order to satisfy objections or representations to that effect. It was for that reason that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whether the opinion of the surveying authority is final. I wanted to find out whether any appeal can be made under the Bill—I do not think it can—against a refusal by a surveying authority to modify the map. It is for that reason these Amendments have been submitted.
That omission is serious from the point of view of transport users, as it is foreseen that they may wish to dispute the opinion of the surveying authority as to whether a particular road could be described as a "road used as a public path," and they might seek the
528
exclusion of such a road from the draft map. Suppose, for example, that there is a way shown on the map and marked as "a road used as a public path." Transport users may wish to contend that this is not a public path but a road which they are accustomed to using. If they have been heard by the surveying authority who have rejected their claim, they would then wish to appeal to the Minister against that ruling, as would other objectors who complain of something deleted from or added to the map. I submit that the Amendment is needed to ensure this right of appeal. For that reason, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("what (if any) modification") and insert ("whether or not any alteration").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to support this Amendment. Obviously the term "road used as a public path" must be a matter of opinion, and when some particular instance is investigated it may be found that that description is not correct and, in fact, that the road is used, on several occasions in the year or regularly, by certain people as a road for vehicular traffic. Therefore, it seems to me that these Amendments are justified, and that there should be an appeal to the Minister on these points.
LORD HAWKE: In trying to follow the arguments of my two noble friends, I am completely nonplussed by the fact that I cannot understand the definition of "road used as a public path." Perhaps the noble Lord could give us some more familiar description of such a road, so that we can visualise exactly what we are talking about.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has three Amendments down to this clause. He will notice that I have nine. Those nine Amendments combined go some way to meet him, although they do not go all the way. I have before me the clause as amended by my nine Amendments, and it is a very substantial document. I wonder whether, for the sake of convenience, it would not be better if we agreed to them now, as they all meet points put forward to some degree by the noble Earl. The amended Clause 29 would then appear in the Bill on the Report stage, and would give

529
opportunity for noble Lords to move Amendments to the amended clause. I think that would help the noble Earl to some degree. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could agree to that course.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. It is entirely satisfactory to me and to the people for whom I speak. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is the first of the nine Amendments to which I referred. All the Amendments are designed to improve the procedure for the consideration of representations and objections about the draft map, and to fill in two gaps in the opportunities available to land owners to put their case to the= surveying authority. That is the sole purpose of the whole nine Amendments, but I think it necessary for noble Lords to see the amended clause on paper in order to do justice to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, at end insert ("or by the addition of a way so that it will be so shown").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord consider at the same time altering the definition of "road used as a public path" in such a way as to be comprehensible to stupid people?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will consider it.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 41, after ("authority") insert ("shall notify the effect of the representation to the person (hereinafter referred to as 'the original objector') who made the representation or objection under subsection (2) of this section and").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 42, after ("objection") insert ("under the last foregoing paragraph").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 43, after ("made") insert ("and to the original objector").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 47, leave out ("was made") and insert ("under the last foregoing paragraph was made and on the original objector").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 2, after ("section") insert ("not to give effect to a representation or objection").— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("not to revoke their determination") and insert—
("to maintain a determination to modify the particulars contained in the draft map and statement by the deletion of a way shown as a public path, or as a road used as a public path, or
(c) by a decision of the surveying authority under the last foregoing subsection to revoke a determination to modify the said particulars by the addition of a way so that it will be so shown").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, leave out from ("to") to end of line 24 and insert ("reverse the decision").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, at end insert—
"() Where a notice of appeal duly served under subsection (4) of this section relates to a decision of the surveying authority under subsection (3) of this section, the authority shall serve a copy of the notice on the original objector, and the Minister shall give to the original objector an opportunity of being heard under the last foregoing subsection at the same time as the appellant."—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Determination by quarter sessions of disputes as to provisional maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 38, leave out from ("for") to ("made") in line 39 and insert ("prescribing the court of quarter sessions to which applications under this section are to be made or for requiring such applications to be").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 29, leave out from ("showed") to end of line 30 and insert ("on the map the disputed public path or road used as a public path").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Periodical revision of maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is not exactly a drafting Amendment. This and the following six have the same purpose: to apply the requirements of subsection (5) about publicity and the hearing of objections to the case where the authority propose to prepare the revised map in respect of part of their area only. This involves the dropping of subsection (6). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 2, after ("authority") insert ("as respects the whole or any part of their area").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("and of") and insert ("specifying").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 6, after ("review") insert ("and how much of their area is affected by the notice").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 9, at end insert ("in respect of so much of their area as is specified in the notice").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 13, leave out ("their area") and insert ("so much of their area as is specified in the notice").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 40, after ("not") insert ("by virtue of that representation").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 43, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Application of ss. 27 to 34 to particular areas]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 44, at end insert—
("(d) in either case, subject to the modification that subsection (5) of section thirty-three of this Act shall not apply as respects part only of the area to which the order or resolution relates").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 44, at end insert—
("() The making or revocation of a resolution or order under this section, or the happening of any other event, whereby land becomes or ceases to be comprised in an area to which the survey provisions apply shall not, as respects any map or standard prepared before the event happened, affect the application in relation to the map or statement of subsection (4) of section thirty-two of this Act or that subsection as applied by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Exercise of functions as to surveys, etc., by joint planning boards]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("those provisions") and insert ("this Part of this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power of Minister to expedite preparation of maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 40, leave out ("not been") and insert ("been made but not").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 44, leave out ("not been") and insert ("been made but not").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 2, leave out ("not been") and insert ("been made but not").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL HOWE: We are passing a great number of Government Amendments, no doubt very necessary. Are they all drafting Amendments, or are they more than that?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: If I say they are drafting I mean they are drafting. If they are more than drafting Amendments I shall say what is necessary.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Supplementary provisions as to maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to add to the clause:
"() Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act or in the last foregoing subsection, an authority, shall not be required to keep available for inspection more than one copy of any definitive map and statement, or revised map and statement prepared in definitive form, if as respects the land to a which that map and statement relate a subsequent revised map and statement so prepared have come into operation; and the said one copy may be kept at such place in the area of the authority as they may determine."
The noble Lord said: Where a revised map in definitive form has been prepared under Clause 33 it is obviously unnecessary for the surveying authority to retain copies of their earlier definitive map distributive at places throughout the county. This Amendment, therefore, provides that the authority shall not be required to keep earlier maps, except one copy which may be useful for reference purposes or for historical reasons in the future. They may keep this copy at whatever place they think fit. That is the sole purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39:
Creation of rights of way by agreement
(2) An agreement made under the last foregoing subsection (hereinafter referred to as a "public path agreement") shall be on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement, and may, if it is so agreed, provide for the dedication of the

535
footpath or bridleway subject to limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way thereover.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that before entering into a public path agreement the council with whom it is proposed to enter into such agreement shall serve a notice of such proposal upon any person having an interest in any fishery for the purpose of fishing for freshwater fish, salmon, trout or any kind of fish which migrate to and from tidal waters, and eels, in every case where the footpath or bridleway will be adjacent to or so near that the use thereof will he likely to cause injury to such fishery and shall give to such person an opportunity of making representations in regard thereto."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is, I think, self-explanatory. It provides simply that where people have a contingent interest in the creation of a footpath by agreement some arrangement shall be made for notifying them of what is intended. Where a footpath is created under the next section by a compulsory order, provision is made for notifying anybody who might be concerned; but, for some reason, when the path is made by agreement that provision is not made. I think that a similar point was raised in another place and the Minister suggested that where anybody who had contingent interests was injured he might have recourse to an action for damages. I have no desire to deprive any lawyer of the possibility of gainful employment, but I feel that if it is possible to thresh out these matters by agreement in advance, and to discover who is likely to be injured, it should be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gage.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I have very much sympathy with this Amendment, but again I am unable to accept the wording. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw the Amendment so that he and I could have consultation regarding the exact wording of the Amendment?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment brings the power of making public path agreements more fully into line with that of making public path orders. I think that will be acceptable to the House, because it is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 21, at end insert—
("(4) References in this section to the dedication of a footpath or bridleway shall be construed as including references to the widening or extension of a footpath or bridleway.") —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: To my mind, there is no objection to this subsection which is perfectly well drawn except that I am not quite sure whether it ought not to have included, as well as the words
"widening or extension of a footpath"
the word "diversion." Diversions are referred to and dealt with in Clause 42. I have not yet discovered the words which cover the case of the dedication of the new piece of land which goes into the diversion and makes this intended subsection applicable to that case. All I am asking is that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should see whether or not "diversion" is covered. If not, diversion should be covered as well as widenings or extensions.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will certainly look into that matter.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Compulsory powers for creation of public rights of way]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1) to add to paragraph (b):
"and the need for the protection and development of agriculture."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to include the protection of agriculture in this Part of the Bill. May I suggest to the noble Lord that unless he can accept this Amendment now it should be included with the other Amendments on the same subject which are to be discussed under Clause 2?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I agree.
EARL DE LA WARR: You are accepting it?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am not accepting it for the moment, but I agree to have it considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Exercise by other authorities of powers under ss. 39 and 40]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 5, leave out ("said") and insert ("appropriate").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:
Fencing of public paths
".—(1) Any person for the time being interested in land adjoining a public path. created by virtue of a public path agreement or a public path order, may, at any time, require the authority with whom the agreement was made or by whom the order was made to erect and maintain a good and sufficient stock-proof fence between the public path and the adjoining land in which he is interested (with such gates, stiles or other means of access through or over such fence as he may from time to time reasonably require).
(2) If any such requirement shall he made as part of any public path agreement or before any public path order comes into operation, it shall be the duty of the authority concerned to comply therewith before the agreement or order comes into operation.
(3) If any such requirement shall be made subsequently to the creation of a public path by agreement or order, it shall be the duty of the authority concerned to comply herewith as soon as may be reasonably practicable and in any event within three months from being required to do so.
(4) If the authority concerned shall fail to comply within three months with any requirement duly made under this section, the person making the requirement may do so himself and recover the cost thereof from the authority summarily as a civil debt or may compel the authority to do so by mandamus."
The noble Lord said: Since putting down this Amendment, I have discovered that the point which I wished to raise is covered by Clause 57 (4), with this one difference, that in the Bill the onus for refusing to erect the fencing lies with the local authority. My Amendment gives a little more bias to the owner of the agricultural land. I am wondering
538
whether the noble Lord would be prepared to go a little further and to allow the land owner a right of appeal to the Minister after he had appealed to the local government authority, because in some cases I am sure that the local government authority will not be so kindly disposed to agriculture as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Carrington.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I thought that the whole point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was covered. In case it is not, I am willing to consider it if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am content that that should be done. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Diversion of public paths
42. —(1) Where an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by a public path satisfies the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated that, by reason of the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith, it is expedient that the line of the path across his land, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to other land of his or on to land of another owner, lessee or occupier), the council may by order (hereinafter referred to as a "diversion order") made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister—
5.27 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1) after "therewith" to insert:
"or because the new path would be shorter or more commodious than the old path."
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at this clause, you will see that it provides for the diversion of public paths, which is a welcome change from the antiquated procedure under the Act of 1835, but it provides that the path can be diverted in one case only. Under this clause, so far as I can see, a diversion can be carried out only by reason of the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith. That is a very narrow reason and justification for diversion. I can think of many other cases where it will be agreed by all parties concerned that it is preferable to divert a path; in

539
some cases, at any rate, there will be no objection, but under this clause the diversion cannot be made, because the path does not affect the use of the land. Your Lordships may ask what sort of a case I have in mind? My answer is that I have in mind a public path going through a wood. Everybody might agree that if it went a different way it would be better for the public and also for the owner. Yet, in my opinion, it would not be possible to alter it under this clause because the use of the land would not be affected in the slightest degree; the wood would remain a wood as before. Therefore, I seek to put in a second reason, which I have stated in the Amendment. I have taken the wording from the old Act and said that a public path should be diverted where it is, by general agreement, shorter or more commodious than the old path. This Amendment should meet with little objection. I should point out that it applies only in cases where there is general agreement and no opposition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 22, after ("therewith") insert the said words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: In my younger days I was concerned with a great number of rights of way cases which came before Chancery counsel. Therefore, acting as counsel for some of the members of this House, I was indirectly responsible for a number of diversions and shortenings of footpaths. I am wholly in favour of these additional words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, being inserted. I can see no objection to them. The only point that occurs to me is that I think it is possible to effect a shortening or the creation of a more commodious footpath by the existing Statute, which is older than any noble Lord now present. Therefore, I am not prepared to say that the absence of these words would lead to intolerable injury. But the method under the old law of 1835 was cumbrous and difficult and took a long time to carry out, and I think it is desirable that the simpler course should be adopted—namely, that of putting in these words and enabling the terms of Clause 42 to be effectual in the case of a diversion where the path will be shorter or more commodious. I am not convinced in my own mind that
540
some further words ought not to be added, but on the whole I think these will achieve the noble Lord's main object. Accordingly I am content at this time of the evening to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the proposed Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment, for one specific reason—namely, that I am advised that this clause deals only with a diversion of a path as it affects the farmer. The Amendment would carry it beyond that purpose and, for that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment in this clause in the way it is put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD MERTHYR: That is a very brief refusal to accept the Amendment. I cannot see that this clause affects only farmers. It starts off by referring to owners, lessees, and occupiers of land. I do not see the word "farm" in the whole clause. I may be wrong, but I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the noble Lord in refusing the Amendment. Would he enlarge upon the matter a little? Because the noble and learned Viscount has given additional reasons why it should be accepted. Am I wrong in saying that this clause can apply to a path which does not go across farmland but goes through a wood? I cannot at the moment see that I am wrong, and if I do happen to be right, why should not the Amendment be made? Surely the noble Lord has not answered the question.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord laid accent on the fact that he cannot accept the Amendment in this clause. Did that mean he was intending to see whether he could accept it somewhere else?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In my reply I said that I was advised that it could not be accepted in this clause. I personally am sympathetic to what Lord Merthyr has in mind, but I am advised that, as moved, it would be impossible for me to accept it here, and for that reason, I refused it here. I do not want to give any undertaking that I can accept it in its present form anywhere, but I am advised that it cannot be included in this clause for the reason that this clause

541
deals only with the diversion of footpaths in relation to fanners. I am asked to discuss the clause from the legal aspect, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, did. I need not tell the Committee that that is beyond me at the moment. I am acting on advice, and on that advice I am unable to accept the Amendment here.
Earl DE LA WARR: You would be prepared to have a look at it?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Certainly.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Before we part with it, I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to the words which define the case where the diversion can take place. They are quite simple words which you do not need to be a lawyer to understand. They refer to cases where—and these are the material words—
"by reason of the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith"
it is expedient that the diversion should be made. Of course, I am glad to think that the common use is one of agriculture, but I am fairly sure that it is not always one of agriculture. There are other perfectly lawful things that you can do on land. You can, for instance, play certain games which have been played there from time immemorial. Moreover, as I think my noble friend Lord Merthyr pointed out, there is nothing about farming here. The clause is confined simply and solely to "the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land." When you have shown that that happens, you have to satisfy the council that it is expedient that the line of the path across the land or part of the land should be diverted.
Even if the clause, as drawn, were confined to farmers, I do not see why we should not extend it to other lawful user of the land. I imagine that if the land were used as a cricket ground or a football ground and there were a path running across it, we should be at liberty under this Bill, if it becomes law and under the existing words, to have a diversion, with the consent of the council. It is a purely reasonable suggestion, and if the noble Lord is not prepared to accept it and promises only to refer it to another place or to another authority, I do hope we can enlist his sympathy in the matter.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: As I said, I do not want to enter into any legal argument, especially with Lord Maugham, but I am advised that the words used in Clause 42, line 21:
"the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith"
presuppose farming. I am advised that if the Amendment is to be considered or accepted at all, it would be far better done in Clause 43, line 5. I have explained my attitude; I am not unsympathetic, but, at the same time, my answer is made entirely on advice given.
LORD MERTHYR: My whole complaint was that this Bill, as drafted, would meet the needs of farmers only and no one else. I do not want to spend more time on the question, but I would like to point out that there must be thousands of miles of paths in this country which do not go across farms at all, but go over other land, along cliffs, through woodlands, over the tops of mountains and so forth. However, if the noble Lord will say that we can talk about it afterwards I will withdraw the Amendment, but I reserve the right to bring it forward again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at the moment.
LORD HARLECH: I hope that my noble friend will not withdraw it. Let us get this provision in the Bill; then we shall be quite sure that the matter will be dealt with after further consideration. I have in mind a path which gives access to a beach. It is certainly inconvenient to many people and I think consideration ought to be given to whether or not it ought to be diverted in the interests of everybody. The point seems to be whether this is the right place for the Amendment. Let us get something in the Bill removing the limitation of consideration purely to farming. There are other reasons why paths may require to be diverted. When this great "Domesday Book" of national parks is compiled, with maps and so on, let us get it as accurate as we can before it comes into force. The only way is to allow any reasonable objection to be made first.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord has said that Clause 42 applies only to agricultural land. What I should like to ask the Minister is why, on merits.

543
assuming that to be a correct legal statement, it should be confined to agricultural land. That is a point to which the noble Lord has not directed his mind. Is it the intention of the Government that this power of diversion should be confined to land which is used as agricultural land? That is a clear issue before us. If so, then I think the Committee would disagree with that intention and would wish to amend the Bill accordingly, either now or on Report. If, on the other hand, the Government's intention is that there should be a power of diversion in the case of land which is not agricultural land, but that in their opinion Clause 42 is not the right place in which to provide for it, then will the noble Lord tell me where in the Bill, as drafted, I shall find that power of diversion in regard to non-agricultural land; and if it is not in the Bill, where it should be put into the Bill?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I understood that Lord Merthyr had already agreed to withdraw the Amendment to enable us to discuss the whole question. The question raised by the noble Viscount could also then be considered. I could not say at this moment where in the Bill it would fit in best.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With respect, I am not making a tiresome point of this. We want to get this provision into the Bill, and we are prepared to take the Government's advice as to where and in what form it should go in. That is what Parliamentary draftsmen are for. What the Committee want to know is, do the Government agree that this power of diversion in regard to non-agricultural land should be in the Bill? That is a simple matter of policy on which the Minister should be able to give an answer.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: All I can say is that I am advised that this is not the place for this Amendment. The noble Viscount asked w here in the Bill could it be inserted. I ask the noble Viscount to accept Lord Merthyr's withdrawal of the Amendment—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With respect, that is not the way proceedings are conducted in this Committee. When an Amendment has been moved and the
544
noble Lord who has moved it asks leave to withdraw it, the Amendment is not withdrawn as of right or as a matter of course. It is the business of the Committee to satisfy themselves that the Amendment should be withdrawn. I asked the noble Lord. Lord Macdonald— perhaps he can obtain the answer if he has not already been instructed—this simple question on policy. Do the Government or do they not accept the desirability of having in the Bill a right of diversion where the land is not agricultural?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is accepted.
LORD MERTHYR: Having received that assurance from the noble Lord, I would like, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw my Amendment now and to bring it up again at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Exercise of powers of staking diversion and extinguishment orders]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to omit subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment. Its purpose, as your Lordships will see, is to delete subsection (5) of this clause. The material part of the subsection reads as follows:
"Where it appears to the Minister as respects a particular public path that the path or part thereof should be diverted or stopped up, then if—

(a)the appropriate authority have not made and submitted to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, and

(b)the Minister is satisfied that, if such an order were made and submitted to him, he would have power to confirm the order in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the last two foregoing sections.

the Minister, after consultation with the said authority. may direct the authority to make and submit to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, or may himself make the order; …"
We have here, starting at page 19 of the Bill, a very elaborate procedure: under Clause 27 for making surveys and of getting information from local authorities; under Clause 29 for hearing representations and objections as to draft maps and

545
statements; under Clause 30 for the preparation of provisional maps and statements, and under Clause 31 for determination by quarter sessions of disputes as to provisional maps and statements. Then under Clause 32 there are provisions respecting the preparation, publication and effect of definitive maps and statements. After all that, one suddenly finds that it is proposed that the Minister should have power to go back on all that with regard to any single path or part of a path in any part of the country as a whole. He is to be allowed to do it purely on his own. It is particularly laid down in the last part of this clause—that is, Clause 44—that:
"…the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, of that subsection, and of the proviso to subsection (24 of this section, or the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, as the case may be, shall not apply."
That means that those things may be disregarded by the Minister and that he need not consult the planning authority. In the case of a national park he need not consult at all; he does it off his own bat. Why should the Minister have that power, and when all this preliminary procedure has been gone through, when, perhaps, a court of quarter sessions has decided that there ought to he a path, in a particular place, why should he be in a position to say: "Not on your life! I am just making an order under Section 44 (5) stopping the path up, although a court has decided the other way"?
Whose is the initiative? I suspect that it is the initiative of the Service Departments. I suspect that it is because the War Office, perhaps, want to have a rifle range and have it open all the time that the Minister is being equipped with this power. Take a place which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, knows quite well, and with which in this matter no doubt he has great sympathy—the lovely walk along Tyneham and Worbarrow Bay. That has been taken over by the Army for a tank range. It has been stopped up completely though, occasionally, they do let you go through, having warned you that there may be "dud" shells lying about and that it is possible you might trip up over one. A large section of the public has been stopped by the War Office from using that particular highway. Here we get a completely overriding power to act without reference to the local authority
546
and local planning. I want to know why, and whether, when there are all these preliminary proceedings, it is proper that there should be given to any Minister, power to disregard entirely the views of the elected representatives of local interests. For these reasons I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 20, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Llewellin in this matter as strongly as I possibly can. Several Private Acts of Parliament have from time to time been passed by your Lordships' House giving power to the Minister to close paths, but in every one of those cases it has been stated that he could do it only "in the public interest." In this part of the Bill there is not a word about public interest. It need not even appear to the Minister to be in the public interest: it has merely to "appear to the Minister." As this subsection is at present drafted the Minister is given almost unlimited power to scrap all the machinery constructed by the Hobhouse Committee and embodied in this Bill, to override and sweep it aside and say: "True, I will consult with the authority, and then I will direct that the public path be closed, or I will make an order myself." He has not to give any reason. He has not even to say it is in the public interest. Surely that is going very far indeed. There are organisations in this country which try, and which have tried for a long time, to protect public rights in this matter. In their efforts to protect these paths they have had a constant battle over many decades with various powers. In the old days the battle used to be against land owners, but that is not the case now; the only enemies left are Government Departments. Unfortunately, however, they are rather more formidable than land owners. We are the first to concede in times of war and crisis that it may be in the public interest to close a path, but this Bill is designed for these times, and we cannot conceive that it is necessary that the Minister should have this power of over-riding the elaborate machinery which this Bill creates.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will add only one word, and it is this. I do not know a single Act of Parliament, in which

547
a Minister is given the right for no reason at all to interfere with private land owned by an ordinary land owner, and I am sure the noble Lord cannot tell me the name of one. No conditions are imposed on the Minister. He may put the right of way in a place where the building value of land, subject to licences and so on, may be almost destroyed. There is nothing here about having regard to the interests of the landlord. It is something new in legislation, is it not, to confer such a right as this, with all the possibility of serious injury being caused to a private owner by the diversion of land. I should add that the right of way which is being stopped up may be one that the land owner uses daily. Nevertheless, the clause is to give this overriding power to deal with land without compensation and, indeed, without explanation. I cannot believe that the noble Lord thinks it right to insist on this clause.
LORD CHORLEY: The considerations which are in the minds of noble Lords in respect of this clause are not those which I had anticipated, and I am inclined to think the clause is rather too widely drafted. To be frank with your Lordships, the object of the clause was to deal on behalf of land owners with such cases as that where, on an agricultural estate, the local authority refuses to divert one of these diagonal footpaths which are such a nuisance to farmers. In such a case, the Minister should have power to divert it. I might point out to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who spoke about societies fighting this question for many years, that this clause has been agreed with the Ramblers' Association on that basis, and they have accepted it as a reasonable compromise. Of course, this power is subject to the conditions specified in the clause, but I appreciate that the clause is possibly too widely drafted and I think it would be well to look at it again. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment on that basis, I shall be happy to see that the matter is reconsidered.
LORD MERTHYR: In view of what the noble Lord said about the Ramblers' Association, may I say that I know nothing about that body. I would make it clear, however, that the Commons. Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society object to this clause most strongly,
548
and have made no sort of agreement or concession on it. I would not have mentioned that, had the noble Lord not mentioned the other organisation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Whatever the Ramblers' Association or anybody else thinks of the drafting of this clause, one of the duties of this Committee is to consider it, and I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for having said that he will take it back. It is monstrously widely drawn. Perhaps before Report stage, we can have a talk about it and see whether we cannot get some sort of agreed clause.
LORD CHORLEY: I take it that the noble Lord is not opposed in principle to some sort of default clause and simply wants to make sure that it will be used in the proper way and is tied up so that it cannot be improperly used.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: if this is intended for the benefit of the land owner, why is the land owner not told anything about it? If this subsection were drawn to say that the Minister "with the consent of the owner of the land," can do these things, I should still think the clause was unwise, but then at any rate, the worst feature would be removed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord asked me a question. I suppose this clause was intended to meet the case where the local authority refused to take action where a footpath that could go round the side of a field went straight across it and prevented the field from being ploughed up properly. If the clause were intended to deal only with that kind of case, I am sure we should all be in agreement. All we are objecting to is the very general powers given. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Compensation for diversion and closure of public paths:
LORD CHORLEY: This is the first of three small Amendments of a drafting character which have been tabled to bring the provisions of this Bill into line with the corresponding provisions for making claims for compensation under the 1947 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 42, leave out from ("manner") to ("as") in line 43.—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47:
Liability for repair of public paths
47.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the rule of law whereby a highway is repairable by the inhabitants at large shall apply to all public paths, whether coming into existence before or after the commencement of this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment passed Of made before the commencement of this Act; and accordingly the enactments relating to highways so repairable shall have effect in relation to all such public paths.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved in subsection (1), after "Act" (where that word last occurs) to insert:
"and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same lines as the Amendment on the next page in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and I suggest that we might discuss the whole problem on this Amendment. The Amendment has been introduced to meet arguments put forward in support of the abolition of certain liabilities to repair highways which, under present law, fall on private individuals.
This liability to repair may fall on a private individual in several ways—by statutory provision, by the tenure under which he holds his property, by prescription, or by the terms of an enclosure. The Hobhouse Committee recommended that these obligations on private individuals should be abolished, principally because of the difficulties of enforcing them, and that they should be placed on the local authorities. The Bill puts the obligation on the local authorities, but it has been felt that on the whole there is a stronger case for keeping the obligation on the private individuals than for removing it, particularly because, under certain of these statutory enactments in cases where bridges are involved, it becomes a substantial obligation; and if it is an obligation which exists and has been effectively and properly imposed by Parliament, or possibly under an agreement, there is no reason why it should be transferred from the shoulders of the individual on whom it rests at present to the shoulders of the
550
local authority. That would in a number of cases be a heavy burden to impose upon a local authority, and that is the principal reason why the Government take the view that the obligation should continue to rest upon the shoulders of the individual and should not be transferred to those of the local authority. The local authority may have in the first instance to carry out the obligation, but it will then be in a position to recover from the individual.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 25, after ("Act") and insert ("and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person")—(Lord Chorley.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Lord (because I frankly have not quite understood this): Is the first subsection of Section 47 remaining as drawn? I have not quite followed what the position is. I must apologise to the House, but I am a little fogged about it. What will be the case with regard to a footpath which was repairable by private people before this Bill came into force? Is the private person to remain liable or is the liability now, under the clause as it stands, transferred, in effect, to the highway authority?
LORD MERTHYR: May I endeavour to answer the question which the noble Viscount has just asked and, at the same time, accept the invitation of the noble Lord to deal with my Amendment at the same time as this one? I do not propose to move the first of my three Amendments (the one to page 42, line 40) but I do propose to move the other two which run together. As I understand it, the Government Amendment, if passed, would have the effect of making a concurrent liability. It would put the duty to repair on a local authority but would retain the duty on the land owner. That is how I understand it, and there would, therefore, be a concurrent liability. It would be a duty of both the authority and of the land owner to repair the path, and I for one do not regard that as a very up-to-date or satisfactory arrangement.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill if he agrees with that construction?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes, certainly. In many of these cases it was not clear where the obligation lay. The Bill puts

551
the obligation clearly on the local authority, but it does not relieve the land owner. This is quite a common case in other branches of local government law, where there is an obligation of an individual to do certain work, and if he does not carry it out the local authority do it and the expense is charged up to the private individual. Although this Bill does not carry out that exactly, in substance that is the procedure which is laid down in this Bill, and we shall move in a minute another supplementary Amendment which dots the "i's" and crosses the "t's" of this.
LORD MERTHYR: I was going on to say, if your Lordships will forgive me, that this concurrent liability is nowadays quite unsatisfactory. I put down an Amendment which would have got rid of the liability on a land owner under an enactment, but I think that would be going too far, and I am not now proposing to move that. I do, however, want to move to get rid of the liability of the land owner under these three ancient rules which are set out in paragraph 61 of the Hobhouse Report. At present, in regard to certain footpaths in the country, the land owner is under a duty to repair, either by reason of tenure, by reason of enclosure, or by reason of injury. The legal words are Latin ones and your Lordships will no doubt understand them just as well. They are all set out in that Report. There is no contest as to the law about it; that is the law. But in these days, particularly under this Bill and whim the land owners are giving away a good deal, surely it is about time that those ancient reasons for liability disappeared. They are not common but they do exist, and they must cause considerable irritation to land owners who have not quite the same resources to carry out those obligations as they used to have.
The noble Lord agrees that that is the position but he insists on continuing this state of affairs, although it is true that by this Amendment he introduces a concurrent liability. These cases of concurrent liability do exist—there is now a concurrent liability between county councils and parish councils to repair footpaths—but in my experience they do not work well. Each council says: "Let the other people do it." The parish
552
council may urgently want to repair a footpath, but not having very much money to do it they may say: "Let the county council do it." The county council would say: "If we do this one we will have to do a hundred; let the parish council do it." The result is that nobody does it. Is not the same situation going to arise here? There will be a little bickering and correspondence, but the whole thing would be so simple if it were said, as the Hobhouse Committee said should be the case, "Sweep away these ancient liabilities." If there is an Act of Parliament which says that the owner shall do the repair, I do not want to interfere with that; but this has nothing to do with an Act of Parliament.
May I finally read paragraph 68 of the Hobhouse Report?
"The surviving liabilities of individuals for the repair and maintenance of rights of way to which we referred in paragraph 61 are of little significance, and difficult to establish. The trouble of ascertaining the degree of liability and of supervising the work of maintenance is frequently more costly in time and money than prompt repair by the authority. We recommend, therefore, that they should no loner be enforceable."
I therefore think there is a strong case for my small hut not unimportant Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: If it were only a question of public footpaths I should be inclined to agree with the noble Lord. I was not a member of that part of the Hobhouse Committee which dealt with footpaths. There is nothing in the Report which suggests that bridges ever came under consideration, hut the really important element in this problem is that of bridges, and it is idle to pretend that the question of keeping bridges in repair is a mere bagatelle. These repairs undoubtedly give rise to great expense, which would prevent the Government from accepting the Amendment in these terms. If it could be confined in some way to the mere question of the path, as opposed to the bridge, I would, without definitely committing my right honourable friend, be prepared to look at it.
LORD MERTHYR: It is true that the Hobhouse Committee were considering primarily footpaths, but let us see what the position will be with regard to bridges if the noble Lord's Amendment is carried and mine is not. There is going to be, in

553
respect of some bridges in this country, a concurrent liability between county council and the land owner to repair a bridge, which is, I agree, a very expensive matter these days. Is it really to be supposed that the county council are going to say: "We agree that this bridge ought to be repaired and that we are liable to repair it, but we are going to dig in our toes and make the land owner pay for it. If he does not do that, the bridge can fall down"?
LORD CHORLEY: With great respect to the noble Lord, he has quite overlooked the provision in the next Amendment which enables the local authority to do the work and charge it up to the land owner. That is quite clear, and it is put in other Statutes, as the noble Lord knows.
LORD MERTHYR: I admit that I had overlooked it for the moment, although I had heard of it. However, I do not think it is fair to land owners who, under this Bill, are giving up a good deal, what with access land, national parks and all the rest of it. I feel the Government might make this concession.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whether I correctly understood him to say that if this applied only to public footpaths he thought he could meet the noble Lord? This clause does apply only to public footpaths, and nothing else.
LORD CHORLEY: With respect to the noble and learned Viscount, a footpath frequently goes across a railway or over a stream on which there is a bridge. It may be quite a substantial structure.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not discussing the question of bridges. I did not understand what the noble Lord said about it applying only to public footpaths. It is a public footpath, even if it goes across a bridge. I did not understand the limitation put upon the words "public footpaths."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I agree with what my noble friend Lord Merthyr has said. An obligation under an enactment is something you can discover and plant fairly and squarely upon the person who is responsible. As the noble Lord has said, the public authority can do the work and charge the individual concerned, and
554
he cannot help himself. But the noble Lord seems to think that in the case of a public footpath or a bridge the same process will be quite easy under some of these very old arrangements which Lord Merthyr quoted to us. With respect, it is nothing like as easy as that. I have had a considerable amount of experience of this matter on my own estate. In practically every case the obligation to keep such a footpath and such a bridge in repair is laid upon the owner of adjoining land. That land may have changed hands many times and may have been split up. I had a case on my own estate not so long ago where there was a road which had not been repaired for twenty-five or thirty years. When we came to go into the matter, we found that three-eighths had to be paid by one person, five-sixteenths by another, one sixteenth by someone else, and so on. What is said in the Hobhouse Report, which was quoted by my noble friend Lord Merthyr is quite right—namely, that the cost of finding out who is responsible for the payment may amount to more than the cost of the repair itself. In the interests of getting the paths and bridges repaired, and of saving administrative time and trouble, as well as money, it would be much better if the Government could agree to accept the Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I would like to say a word in support of that argument from the point of view of the public authority. I expect this question has come up many times in every county council in the Kingdom. Speaking from my own experience, I can say that where there is dual responsibility the county council are very shy of doing the work and taking their chance of recovering the money from the land owner, because in many cases they have been "bitten" and have never obtained it. The result is that very often they do not do the work, the owner does not do it, and the bridge falls down or the footpath gets overgrown.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have had a thorough discussion on this subject and it is evident that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill does not feel that he can commit himself. At the same time, he has said that he is prepared to go some way to meet us. It is true that he restricts that undertaking so far as footpaths are

555
concerned, and he is a little nervous about the question of bridges. I should have thought the whole subject might be looked into again. I feel that a strong case has been put up, and if the noble Lord will undertake to look into the whole question again, including bridges, I am sure noble Lords will be satisfied.
LORD HARLECH: I would like to say a few words before the Amendment is withdrawn. I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill still has the idea that many of these bridge are liabilities on what might be called the big country landlords. My experience is—certainly in great parts of Wales—that practically all the estates have been broken up, and the land where there are these bridges over streams is just the land that has been sold, usually to the local tenant, who is probably a little hill farmer. I am certain he never realised that under some ancient usage he might be liable to rebuild that bridge out of his slender earnings. The liability to bear the whole cost of these country bridges, on which there will be an increased user by motorists, and so on, is going to fall on some local farmer, unless there is provision under a special enactment. I feel that the Government must take a different view of what they can expect land owners, and especially land owners of that kind, to undertake in regard to these developments. I hope the whole matter will be none into further before the Report stage, because I think a great injustice will be done to a large number of small people.
LORD CHORLEY: If a way can be found of dealing with this question, I shall be glad to assist in finding it. The noble Lord is not asking the Government, but the local authority, to hear the expense. However, we will certainly look at the matter again if, on that understanding, the noble Lord will not move his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Are all the Amendments to page 42 of the Bill dropped?
LORD CHORLEY: These Amendments are partly mine and partly Lord Merthyr's. I think it better that they should not be moved for the time being, and that if necessary they should be put down again on the Report stage. This
556
includes the Amendment at page 43, line 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to subsection (3):
"For the purposes of this section it shall be the duty of a highway authority in relation to every public path or road used as a public path to prevent and secure the removal of obstructions."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, this Amendment says that
"it shall be the duty of a highway authority … to prevent and secure the removal of obstructions."
At first sight that seems very simple, but in another place the Government rejected the Amendment on these lines. The position under the present law, under Section 26 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, is that the duty of preventing obstructions on highways is primarily that of the district council, although that body has no liability to repair, its former liability having been taken away by the Local Government Act, 1929. Curiously, therefore, the district council, in this respect alone, is still a highway authority, and perhaps for that very reason hundreds of district councils to my personal knowledge are not carrying out their duties under that Act, and obstructions are not removed when they should be. What we want to do is to wipe out this dual control, or, at any rate, if we do not wipe it out, to plant firmly upon the county council the duty of removing obstructions.
When this matter was raised in another place, it was stated on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the words "the duty to repair" included the duty to remove obstructions. I cannot quite follow that argument. I should have thought that in a court of law it could at least be argued that repairs to a road did not include the removal of an obstruction wilfully placed on the road. Of course, it may include the removal of a branch of a tree which had fallen on the road. But, to take a case which occurred some time ago, when it comes to building a garage on the highway, does duty to repair really include the duty to remove the garage? I understand that in another place it was said that it did, but I find great difficulty in following the argument. Surely it would be quite safe and wise to

557
put in this additional sentence, merely to make it perfectly clear that in the future it will be the duty of the county council to remove obstructions.
I would like to read an extract from Paragraph 77 of the Hobhouse Report. It says:
"We think that the time has now come to place upon one authority the general duty to prevent and remove all obstructions of rights of way in its area, and in view of the close inter-relation between maintenance of rights of way and prevention of their obstruction, we are of the opinion that the same authority should he chosen for both duties. We, therefore, recommend that a general duty should be laid upon the highway authority to prosecute anyone obstructing a right of way by any means which may impair the right, or detract from the convenience, of the public."
If the Government are really right in stretching the use of the word "repair" to such an unprecedented extent, well and good. But are your Lordships perfectly satisfied that they are right and could not be held to be wrong in a court of law? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43. Line 10, at end insert the said words.(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It is perfectly plain to me that there are obstructions which hake nothing to do with the repair of the road. The simplest case—very common in the United States, but not so common here —is the case of a man who has a very old motor car and who leaves it on the footpath, just to get rid of it. It may be arty other vehicle which he may leave there, either deliberately or by accident. Nothing has happened to the footpath; it is merely that a vehicle has been left on top of it. I could give a number of other illustrations, but I think that one is enough to show that the present clause does require some amendment with regard to obstructions.
LORD MORLEY: The noble and learned Viscount is saying that the duty has not been carried out. To put another duty upon them, which would simply repeat a duty which already exists, would not be of any help in getting it carried out. I am advised that it is clearly the duty of the highway authority at Common Law to keep the footpath in such a state that the public can pass along it freely and safely. The additional duties which have been imposed by Statute in respect of repair are simply supplementary and
558
additional to the Common Law obligation. I am advised that at Common Law there is no question at all that it would be the duty of the highway authority to remove the garage to which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has referred. The fact that the highway authority is not doing its duty is, of course, another matter, and steps should be taken by those interested to see that the authority which is responsible carries out its duties. But that would not be secured by writing the same duty into a new Bill, and it would be quite superfluous to do 'it here. Therefore I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I should like to ask the noble Lord. Lord Merthyr, why in his Amendment he does not use the words "county council," but the words "highway authority."
LORD MERTHYR: The highway authority for the purpose of repair is the county council. The highway authority for the purpose of the removal of obstructions is the district council. I do not wish to occupy too much time, but I am certainly not satisfied with the answer. If the noble Lord is right, and it is the duty of the highway authority under Common Law, surely it would be fairly harmless to put in this short sentence, giving it statutory authority. What harm could it possibly do? I hope the noble Lord will consider the point again, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
6.28 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 47 to insert the following new clause:
Double fences to be provided with double gates or stiles.
". Where the boundary between two closes of land through which a right of way to this Part of this Act applies passes consists of a double fence or hedge then whether such double fence was in existence at the commencement of this Act or comes into existence at any time after such commencement shall be erected a stile or gate in the line of each such fence or hedge and the existence thereof shall be deemed not to pc an obstruction."
The noble Earl said: This is a small but important point, dealing with the fact that anyone who put; up any extra obstruction on a footpath is liable to be instructed to remove it. That is all

559
right, but in the case of a farmer who has had his herd attested, he has to have a double fence and, of course, the fence has to go right up to the path where the stile or gate is. Therefore, it is necessary to have two stiles or two gates, and as the law stands at the present time that could be deemed to be an obstruction. This small Amendment of mine is designed to put that matter right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 47, insert the said new clause. —(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: The Bill does go some way towards meeting the point which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has put forward. In Clause 57 (4), the highway authority are given a power—it is true that it is not a duty—to authorise the erection of gates and stiles across footpaths in the interests of agriculture. Of course, that includes, if thought fit, the type of double gate or stile to which the noble Earl has referred. I should have thought that this provision would satisfy him.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true that the owner or the lessee or occupier can represent to the highway authority that it is expedient to do this, but that does not say that the highway authority will necessarily give sanction and there may be a farmer in the position of having had his herd attested and then being held up from carrying on by an unreasonable decision of the highway authority.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Clause 57, subsection (4), deals with land that is brought into agriculture, and not with existing agricultural land which, by reason of the attestation of the cattle, requires an extra obstruction to be put across a footpath. There is one obstruction already in the shape of a fence, in which there is a stile, but as I understand it it would be illegal to put another fence across the same footpath. That is what we want to make legal. At present it could be illegal.
LORD CHORLEY: It could be an obstruction, but under the subsection to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention the local authority could permit it. The noble Earl said that they might refuge to do so. I wonder whether if some provision were inserted for an
560
appeal against refusal that would meet the point. I am sorry I cannot go the whole way.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Could we do it in this way—that if the application were supported by the agricultural executive committee it could be done?
LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think this might be added to the points on which we should hold consultations. It is obviously an interesting and useful point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am grateful to the noble Lord and to Lord Llewellin. I think I should say, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that I had some talk with him on the subject and made some suggestions, but if we could go a little further it would he helpful. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, after Clause 47 to insert the following new clause:
". It shall be the duty of a highway authority to provide, at every junction of a public path with a road, a signpost indicating the place or places to which such path leads, and wherever necessary or desirable to provide such signposts at junctions of public paths with other public paths. Provided that where a signpost cannot be placed on a public path without interfering with free passage along such a path, it may be placed on land immediately contiguous to such path."
The noble Lord said: The present law on this matter is contained in Section 24 of the 1835 Act: Under that Act it is the duty of a highway authority to erect signposts at all junctions where two or more highways meet. But the snag is that before they do that they are obliged to obtain the consent of the inhabitants assembled in the vestry. That is now the county council, therefore the net result is that they need not do this at all if, after asking their own consent, that consent is not obtained so it is purely voluntary. It is sought now to make it a statutory duty to erect signposts at the junction of a public path with a road. It is a very modest suggestion, and I do not want to go so far as the old law went—which law, I may say, was never enforced. I think it is reasonable to have a signpost where a public path joins a road. This, I am glad to say, has been

561
excellently done by one or two councils already—notably in Essex, and by some others. But there are many counties which have not begun the work. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 47 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Merthyr)
LORD W1NSTER: I have no words that. I can use tin this Committee to describe what I think about certain parts of this proposal. The main object of this Bill is to preserve natural beauty. I am already apprehensive whether one or two of its provisions may not be found to defeat that object. In those cases the damage would be done by inadvertence, and not by intention, but here the proposal to do damage is brought out into the open, and openly admitted. A great ingredient of natural beauty, particularly in the mountains and the fells, is a sense of solitude, of loneliness, and of remoteness from the works of man. Many public paths over the fell tops and amongst the mountains constantly intersect other public paths. The proposal is that at every one of these junctions a signpost should be erected. I think the proposal is not only objectionable but quite unnecessary. If people cannot learn to read a map, or to cultivate a "bump of location" or to follow simple directions, they had better keep away from these parts.
This proposal leads us in the direction of the barbarous custom that one encounters in Germany, where beautiful walks through forests are spoiled and disfigured by almost every other tree being daubed with some coloured paint intended to keep the walker safely on the right path. In many cases you will find a large notice which says: "Halt! Warning! Follow the green paint for 100 yards to a beautiful view point." When you get there you will find some sham Gothic building—with a placard telling you what you ought to look at. We do not want to go in that direction. Nor do we want to adopt the custom of installing in these places a cannon which, on payment of a small fee, can be fired in order that you may hear the echo; and where, on payment of another small fee, you may have the waterfall lit up by fairy lamps. I hope that in this case the Minister will not even attempt the time-honoured formula of agreeing to
562
look at the Amendment. I think he has already agreed to look again at very nearly the whole Bill. I trust that without further ado this Amendment will be "cast into outer darkness" to join that hinny to which the Committee have already refused admission to the Bill.
VISCOUNT ESHER: The noble Lord, Lord Winster has made one of those reactionary speeches which one hears only from the Labour Benches. His speech was amusing, but of course it was complete nonsense. The few counties—among them is Buckinghamshire—that have put up these signposts (which are quite unobtrusive) have found them very valuable to the public at large. It is all very well for the inhabitants of these places: they know exactly where these footpaths are. But there are large numbers of young people, hikers and so on, who do not know where the paths are, and they trespass all over farms and agricultural land instead of sticking to the footpath. These signposts are not ugly. It is easy to make fun of this matter. I was walking in a very remote district this summer, along a road which ran across the top of the Downs, and I found a signpost which was inscribed Londinium. It was, of course, the direction to London. Lord Winster may have found this objectionable, but I found it extremely natural and romantic. People who enjoy these paths enjoy them better if they are marked by signposts. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will insist on this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to approach this subject, not from the ideological point of view but from the strictly practical point of view of whether the work will ever be done. I know that m my own county there are some 3,000 miles of footpaths—I do not know how many intersections they have with the main roads. Unfortunately, not having followed the example of Essex, we have an inadequate number of signposts. It may, or may not, be a good thing that we should follow the example of Essex, but I feel doubtful whether, at the present stage of history, we should even get the timber allocation to make all these signposts. Certainly, having regard to the man-power limitations set

563
upon us by the Government, it would be very many years before the work would he carried out.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I am not thinking so much of the wilder parts of the country. I live on the borders of Wiltshire and Hampshire. Hampshire is one of the advanced counties with signposts; Wiltshire is a delightfully backward county which has not thought about it. I cross over the border and go from one part of my farm to another. On Hampshire ground it is downland, and there is a perfect forest of green sticks with little green fingers on them with the words "footpath" displayed all over the place. It is a fearful waste of timber and it all looks extremely ugly. I hope that His Majesty's Government will refuse to accept the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am glad to be able to accede to a request from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I will not take it back and look at it again. I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in resisting the Amendment. We do not go so far as he does in objecting to signposts. In a number of cases they may be right and of great assistance, but in other parts of the country they are not at all desirable. Moreover, what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said about the expense and difficulty is a very real point. As your Lordships are aware, there are in many parts of the country short stretches of footpath only fifty or a hundred yards long, cutting across corners from one road to another. If this Amendment were passed, all those paths would have to be signposted at great expense to the community. This is an impracticable suggestion. I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD MERTHYR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Making up of public paths]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a mere drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 21, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY: This also is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51:
General provisions as to long-distance routes
(3) A report under this section may also include such recommendations as the Corn-mission may think fit for the restriction of traffic on existing highways along which the route passes.
(4) Before preparing a report under this section the Commission shall consult every joint planning board, county council, county borough council and county district council through whose area the route passes; and it shall be the duty of every such board or council to furnish to the Commission such information as the Commission may reasonably require for the purposes of the report.
LORD CHORLEY: This is preparatory to the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 40, after ("of") insert ("such").—(Lord Charley).
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. As the paragraph stands, it is defective in that it assumes that some parts of the long-distance route will always run along an existing highway, which would not he so. These words are put in to correct that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 43, and insert ("as may be required for enabling the public to journey along the route").—(Lord Chorley).
6.44 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that before making any recommendation for restricting the use of a highway by vehicles, the Commission shall consult such associations representing users of vehicles as they may think fit."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, which I think explains its intention well enough. There may be a great many main roads used as public paths established under this Bill and many of these —in fact probably most of them—transport users will not wish to dispute in any way; but it so happens that the Bill affects, or could affect, no less than 843 miles of trunk roads and Class I roads. Any portion of these main arterial routes could become "a road mainly used as a public path," in the words of this Bill. The transport users feel that, before making any recommendations for restriction of the highway on these very important routes, the Commission should consult those representing the transport users. When I say that, I should like to include any other bodies affected. I do net want to claim any special privilege for the transport users in this connection. I wish to ensure merely that for the proper working of the Bill everybody concerned should be consulted before an order is made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: The Amendment of the noble Earl would not effect the object which he has in view. It is altogether too vaguely drafted. Merely to impose upon the Commission the obligation to consult such associations as they think fit would not put upon them any actual obligation which could be enforced. I agree with the noble Earl, however, that it is important, and, indeed, necessary, that the big associations representing the road users should be consulted. I am prepared to give him an assurance that my right honourable friend will press upon the National Parks Commission, when they are formed, the extreme importance of their doing so. Undoubtedly, they will be prepared to do that. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reception of this Amendment. I agree that the wording may not be ideal—it is probably no good —but does the noble Lord not think that perhaps at another stage of the Bill it might be desirable to put something in the Bill to carry out this intention? Governments change, Commissions
566
change, and Ministers come and go. Might it not be a good idea to have in black and white hat the procedure should be?
LORD CHORLEY: I think it would be extremely difficult to have a satisfactory statutory obligation of this kind. It is the sort of thing which is much better left to he dealt with in the may I have suggested.
EARL HOWE: But there is no record of it. That is the trouble. However, having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I suppose I can only withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to think about it a little further on another stage of the Bill to see whether we can get something to fit a little better, of which the Minister might approve. I beg leave to Withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY had given notice of two Amendments, of which the first was, in subsection (4) to omit the first word "and." The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House, I should like to deal with these two Amendments together. They obviously cling together, End their object is to ensure that a river board and drainage authority are brought into the picture at the earliest possible moment. Under subsection (4) of this clause, the Commission are under an obligation to consult certain authorities. My intention is that they should also include river boards and drainage authorities. In many cases these long-distance routes will involve crossing waterways including those under the jurisdiction of drainage authorities. Under the clause as it now stands there will be no prior consultation with any drainage authority concerned, and the Commission might well select an unsuitable point for crossing a waterway by means of a bridge. There is apparently one particular case where a long-distance route was in the course of being mapped out and where in the first instance it was proposed to build the bridge over a main river at a point that was unsuitable, not only from the point of view of land drainage interests but also from the point of view of those who would use the route. Fortunately the matter was brought to the attention of the catchment board which was able to point out an alternative

567
crossing that was satisfactory to all interests concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 10, leave out ("and").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEY: This, of course, is very similar to the other Amendments which the noble Lord has moved with the object of ensuring that drainage authorities and river boards are given notice of everything which is to happen. He is taking up a particularly strong line on behalf of these authorities—a line which, as I pointed out to him, could have been taken up on behalf of all sorts of other authorities. The Government's view is that this again is much better dealt with by administrative means. My right honourable friend has already given an assurance to the Catchment Boards Associations that he will bring to the notice of the local authorities concerned the desirability, of consulting the appropriate drainage authority in every case where that authority is likely to be concerned with these long-distance paths; and that is likely to happen only very rarely. The most obvious case is perhaps that of the towpath along the Thames. The Thames Conservancy have not asked for this particular Amendment, nor for any assistance of this type. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied that the method I have indicated is the best way of dealing with this problem. In those circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of the noble Lord's assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, who is in fact responsible for these river boards, is content with the position as it now stands. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is preparatory to the next Amendment. I bea to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 19, leave out ("and").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 19, after ("paths") insert ("or roads used as public paths").—(Lord Chorley.)
6.53 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (5):
"and of the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by local authorities in connection with the provision and operation of ferries, and the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshments, so far as those matters are provided for by the proposals."
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment, but perhaps I ought to say a word about it. In the Report stage, in another place. the powers of local authorities were enlarged in various ways, especially in connection with the long-distance paths, both in order to enable them to provide and operate ferries and to secure the provision of accommodation, including, meals and refreshment, on the long-distance paths. The Report which the Commission is required to make to the Minister in connection with the long-distance path proposals must include estimates of the cost of the proposals, and this Amendment ensures that these estimates will include the new proposals in regard to ferries and accommodation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to the clause:
"() Before the Commission submit their report to the Minister they shall publish in the London Gazette and in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area or areas through which the proposed long distance route passes a notice indicating the course of the route recommended by the Commission and the proposals contained in their report for the restriction of traffic on existing highways and stating the time within which representations with respect thereto may be made to the Commission and any representations duly made shall he submitted with the report to the Minister."
The noble Earl said: There is apparently no provision in the Bill requiring the recommendations made by the Commission to be published, and in the absence of such a recommendation such people as those interested in transport might find it difficult to ascertain what recommendations had been made. Those

569
recommendations might be of a far-reaching and important character. This Amendment is put down simply in order to try to rectify that omission, to enable people to have an opportunity of finding out what is being proposed and of stating their objection, if any, to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 21, at end insert the new sub-section.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to support the noble Earl by saying that all that is being asked in this Amendment is that the provisions with regard to publication in the London Gazette and local newspapers should be the same as in regard to national parks. It is only bringing the long-distance routes into line with the provisions already made regarding national parks. Therefore, it seems to me a very reasonable Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I cannot quite agree that it is exactly the same as the procedure in connection with national parks. appreciate that the noble Earl has a point here and very careful consideration has been given to it; but, on the whole. our view is that this Amendment would do more harm than good. In the first place, the stage at which the noble Earl's Amendment proposes that this should he done is a stage at which the whole problem should be kept as flexible as possible. If an advertisement of this kind is inserted, it tends immediately to make the thing definite and unelastic. Moreover, from the point of view of the land owner, it might have very unfortunate effects if it were to be advertised at this particular stage. On the whole, therefore, the Government's view is that the advantages derived from it are considerably out-weighed by the disadvantages, and I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Might I ask if the noble Lord would take the same view as before, that we should go into it and sec whether we could produce something of the sort at a later stage in the Bill? The request is merely to try to get information as to what is proposed. If it is not appropriate at this point it may be that he will he able to put it in somewhere else.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very much in sympathy with the noble Earl's objective
570
of seeing that the associations representing vehicle users are given the opportunity of dealing with the proposal at an appropriate stage. If he can produce something which is more satisfactory, we shall be glad to look at it.
EARL HOWE: I am very grateful. Having regard to that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by lave, withdrawn.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Ferries for purposes of long-distance routes]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 1, leave out ("for") and insert ("relating to").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is one of a substantial number of Amendments consequential on the addition of the new Clauses 53 and 54, relating to ferries and accommodation on the long-distance routes. I might perhaps refer to them as they come along as the Clause 53 and Clause 54 consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 44, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: Are these drafting Amendments?
LORD CHORLEY: They are consequential Amendments. During the Report stage in another place, as I mentioned in connection with an Amendment which we took a few minutes ago, the local planning authority were given power to establish ferries in connection with the long-distance routes, and also to make provision for accommodation. They are new provisions and call for a number of consequential Amendments to be inserted later in the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: I gather that these Amendments give no new powers.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The great point about this seems to be that it takes away a power from the Minister, which is all to the good.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Accommodation, meals and refreshments along long-distance routes]:
LORD CHORLEY: These are all consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 6, leave out from ("refreshments") to ("through") in line 7 and insert ("any local planning authority").
Page line 8, at end insert ("shall have power")
Page line 11, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may")
Page line 12, leave out ("shall be") and insert ("are")
Page line 16, leave out ("if the authority think fit")
Page line 21, leave out ("or require") —(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think, as a matter of fact, that these largely meet a point which I made in my speech on Second Reading and in which I strongly criticised the original drafting of this particular clause. I am indebted to the noble Lord for improving it, as these Amendments do.
LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Execution of approved proposals relating to a long-distance route]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 55.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Penalty for displaying on footpaths notices deterring public use]:
LORD CHORLEY: These two Amendments are designed to correct two misprints. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 12, leave out ("these") and insert ("those")
Page 51, line 14, leave out ("these") and insert ("those").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
7.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following new clause:
Existing rights to drive on a highway not to be prejudiced
". Nothing contained in this Part of this Act or done under the authority thereof shall diminish or prejudice the exercise of any existing right of the public to drive a vehicle on a highway."
The noble Earl said: This refers to the same point as that which I tried to bring forward in connection with Clause 29. Transport users are anxious that the mere fact that roads are included in the Schedule of Roads used as a public path shall not necessarily mean that they will be limited in any way in their right to drive along those roads. In order that the position may be made clear, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 59, insert the said new clause. —(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: As the noble Earl has said, this is very similar to an earlier Amendment which he moved. In fact, there is no need for an Amendment of this kind. Clause 32 (4) sets out the extent to which the particulars contained in a definitive map or statement are conclusive. The case in point is a highway shown on a footpath map as a "road used as a public path"; and subsection (4) (b) of Clause 32 states that the appearance of a "road used as a public path "on a map shall be conclusive evidence that the public has a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback along the highway, but that this is without prejudice—I ask the noble Earl specially to observe this—to any question whether the public have any other rights. Therefore, if there are rights for vehicular traffic, particularly motor cars, the fact that the definitive map contains this marking does not in any way prejudice the right of motor car users to prove their right to use the track in question with motor vehicles, if, in fact, they have such right.
EARL HOWE: Having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I beg to thank him, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Provision for public access to open country]:
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in the title of Part V, to leave out "Open Country" and insert "Uncultivated Land." The noble Lord said: Some people are a little doubtful whether the words "open country" are the best for ensuring the purpose which it is desired to achieve here, and have suggested that the words "uncultivated land" would be more suitable. I do not want to take up time by initiating a debate on this matter. If, by chance, the Government should think it a good idea to alter the wording, then I would think myself justified in moving the Amendment. If they do not, I shall not press it in the slightest and shall withdraw it at once. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 34, leave out ("Open Country") and insert ("Uncultivated Land"). —(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: We have great sympathy with the noble Lord's proposal. The term "uncultivated land" has usually been used in this connection, but unfortunately, from the point of view of putting it in the Bill, the sort of land which we are dealing with—that is, access land—may well include a certain amount of cultivated land; that is to say, in the access orders there may be included areas which have some cultivated land in them. I am not sure that the words "open country" are completely satisfactory, but in the view of the Government they are more satisfactory than the words "uncultivated land." Another objection to the latter term arises from the fact that it would cover a good deal of land in towns. I imagine that Trafalgar Square is, technically speaking, "uncultivated land." I hope that the noble Lord will agree to the words "open country" and will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am surprised to hear that cultivated land may be in an access area. I thought that it was in the Bill that it had to be excepted land. I should like to hear how it came about that apparently I made such an extraordinary mistake.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has made a startling remark and I hope he will clear it up.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord has asked me to deal with this in greater detail. Where an area consists predominantly of mountain and moor, but also contains some cultivated land, the local authority can make an access order in respect of the whole area.
LORD CRANWORTH: What about excepted land?
LORD CHORLEY: There will be excepted land within the area in question, but the order relates to the whole area, of which certain parts are excepted. Your Lordships will appreciate that if we used the term "uncultivated land" to apply to the whole area, that would not be satisfactory. It is clear that there may be inside the area smaller areas which are excepted.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Then they are not access land automatically.
LORD CHORLEY: They are excepted from access, but the order which the planning authority makes will cover the whole area to which the order applies. I do not think there is any question between us.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Surely there are some types of land, such as areas of cultivated land, to which an access order cannot be made. Everybody realises that our food supply is most important, and that recreation should be done on uncultivated land. Whether the words are right or wrong, I was rather terrified when the noble Lord said that access orders could be made in regard to cultivated land.
LORD CHORLEY: I did not say that. I said that the area for which an order might be made might include some cultivated land and that therefore the term "uncultivated land" for describing the whole area would be inapposite.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we should forget this terminological inexactitude. As we agree that "open country" is best, we will forget the noble Lord's little mistake.
LORD MERTHYR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Rights of public where access agreement or order in force
61.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, where an access agreement or order is in force as respects any land a person who enters upon land comprised in the agreement or order for the purpose of open-air recreation without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge or gate, or who is on such land for that purpose after having so entered thereon, shall not be treated as a trespasser on that land or incur any other liability by reason only of so entering or being on the land:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to land which for the time being is excepted land as hereinafter defined.
(3) An access agreement or order may specify or provide for imposing restrictions subject to which persons may enter or be upon land by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, including in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, restrictions excluding the land or any part thereof at particular times from the operation of the said subsection (1); and that subsection shall not apply to any person entering or being on the land in contravention of any such restriction or failing to comply therewith while he is on the land.
(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression "excepted land "means land which for the time being is of any of the following descriptions. that is to say,—
(c) land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant entered into under the Forestry Act, 1947, or in respect of which advances have been made by the Forestry Commissioners under the Forestry Acts, 1919 to 1947;
Provided that
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of three Amendments to subsection (1), of which the first was to omit "following." The noble Lord said: This is the first of three Amendments which refer to the Second Schedule. I drew attention to this matter on the Second Reading. These Amendments do nothing more than redraft. In the clause it says that a person who is on access land without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge or gate, shall not be treated as a trespasser. When we turn to the Second Schedule, we find that subsection (1) of Clause 61 shall not apply to a person who in or upon the land does all the things set out in the Schedule. My Amendment, which runs together with my
576
Amendment to the Second Schedule to insert:
"breaks or damages any wall, fence, hedge or gate."
is only a matter of redrafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 8, leave out ("following").— (Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, with his usual tenacity regarding good drafting, has drafting alone in mind, but although it is only drafting, we would prefer that we did not remove these words from the clause. The Bill as drafted provides that anyone who gets on to access land without causing any damage in so doing shall not be a trespasser provided. that he observes certain restrictions when he is on the land. It is felt that the provision that actual entry on to the land should not cause any damage is so important that it ought to be in the clause and not in the Schedule. The restrictions in the Second Schedule apply to acts which are done intentionally or knowingly after entry on to the land—for instance, to wilfully damaging "the land or anything thereon or therein." Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule deals with breaking through fences. The noble Lord knows, as I do, that one does not break through a hedge by accident. The effect of the addition to the Second Schedule would be to make a man a trespasser on access land if once on the land he caused any damage, however slight or accidental, to "any wall, fence, hedge or gate." My right honourable friend feels that that would be unduly restrictive. I agree it is a matter of drafting but we prefer to have it remain as it is.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In the Second Schedule it says:
"Wilfully damages the land or anything thereon or therein."
That includes, surely a "wall, fence, hedge or gate." I do not mind whether these words remain where they are or go into the Schedule, but I should like some reference in this clause to the Second Schedule. When I first read the Bill all I thought we had to do was not to break down any "wall, fence, hedge or gate," but when I read to the end of the Bill, I found that none of these things was referred to in the Schedule. If the noble Lord would accept my first two Amendments,

577
I would not press the third, which: was the only one he dealt with in his reply.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I remember that on Second Reading the noble Lord referred to the fact that in Clause 61 we appeared to be hiding something instead of bringing it out into the open. I still feel there is no need to refer here to the Schedule. I would much prefer that he did not press me on that point, but if he feels very strongly about it I am prepared to consider the point between now and Report stage.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I see no reason why the clause should not refer to the Schedule when in the Schedule there is a reference to the clause, but if there is some grave objection to that so be it. However, it is the kind of point that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and I can talk over. It seems to me that if you have a reference in the Schedule back to the clause, then you should have a reference forward to the Schedule from the clause, and that is all I am anxious to provide for by my first two Amendments, though they may not have been properly drafted for that purpose. I think that is the right way of doing it, but we can discuss it, and on that basis I beg leave now to withdraw the first Amendment. I shall not move the next two.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to subsection (3):
"Provided that unless the Minister is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the land or any part of it shall not be excluded from the operation of subsection (1) of this section on any public holiday, nor on any Saturday or Sunday immediately preceding or following a public holiday, nor for more than twelve consecutive days nor for more than a total of twenty days in any one year."'
The noble Lord said: Having been a member of the Hobhouse Committee, I appreciate that this is a difficult point. It is not easy at all to satisfy both the owners of the land and the public who desire to go upon it. The Bill states, in subsection (3) of this extremely important clause, that in respect of certain access land an order may at particular times specify that the land is closed to the public. There is no limit to the times during which the land may be closed, and I venture to suggest that there ought to be. Needless to say, the greatest interest
578
to the public in enjoying the use of access land will be at week -ends and bank-holi. days, and it would be reasonable that this Amendment should be inserted to say that unless the Minister is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist, the public shall be able to enjoy the land unrestricted at week-ends, and that the week-ends shall not be among the particular times referred to in subsection 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the noble Lord replies, I would like to say that I hope he is not going to accept this Amendment. One of the things that may result from the clause as it at present stands is more access land being voluntarily thrown open to the public, so long as its use can be restricted art such times as lambing time, When it is not convenient to open it, because sheep do not discriminate as to whether they deliver their lambs on Sunday or Saturday. Also, in the case of places where there is a great risk of fire, the public may well have to be excluded on many dates in August or in the other summer months, if access is to be retained at other times in the year. If the Amendment is made, we shall get far less access land given voluntarily, which is much the better way of getting it. Therefore, I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The case against the Amendment could not have been better put than by Lord Llewellin. I do not need to repeat what he has said, but there is one other case that I ought to mention where for good reasons it is essential to keep the public oar for longer periods than is suggested by Lord Merthyr. For instance, lambing time and the Easter holidays sometimes coincide, and if the restricted limes were limited in the way the noble Lord wishes to limit them, it would not -help. Far that reason and the reasons already given by Lord Llewellin, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I do not press the Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at a quarter to nine.]
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (5) to omit paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the difficulty that I should have if I tried to deal with this Amendment without making a rather exhaustive reference to further Amendments later in the Bill. I would like to discuss with this Amendment the new clause following Clause 79. That will make it much easier for me, and I am sure your Lordships will follow much better. The new clause is so comprehensive, and raises such important questions, that I think on this occasion I ought to keep as closely as possible to my brief.
The new clause is inserted to meet the criticisms voiced by the Opposition that in the matter of excluding land from the possibility of access forestry had been worse treated than agriculture. A further point of criticism was that the Bill excepted woodlands where there was a dedication scheme in force, or in respect of which grants were being paid, but omitted to provide for other commercial woodlands. The Minister was sympathetic to the contention that the public should not be admitted to woodlands where access would threaten a danger to timber production, but maintained the view that the public should not be automatically excluded from woodlands in open country where no real danger was to be feared. In consultation with the Forestry Commission, it was decided that woodlands should be removed altogether from the list of automatic exceptions in Clause 61, but that a special procedure should come into operation.
The new clause which provides the special procedure, deals not only with the question of woodlands in existence at the time that an access order is made but also makes provision for land to be taken out of access agreements or orders where at some later date the owner represents that he intends to use them for forestry and that the public should not be admitted. Subsection (1) binds the Minister not to confirm an access order if a representation is made that it relates to woodlands used either for the growing of commercial timber or to woodlands of value to the amenity of the neighbourhood and that the growth or regeneration of the timber would be prejudiced if the public were allowed access to them,
580
provided that he is satisfied that these representations are correct. Subsection (2) provides for land already subject to an access agreement. If the owners of woodlands cannot get their land taken out of the agreement by agreement with the local authority, they may represent to the Minister on the same grounds as above, and the subsection gives the Minister power to secure the variation of the agreement. Subsection (3) makes similar provisions for the variation of access orders.
Subsection (4) provides for the holding of local inquiries or hearings. Subsection (5) provides that in considering any representations from owners that their land should be taken out of access orders or agreements the Minister must have regard to any restrictions on the public access which have been or could be imposed under the agreement or order, and it makes it possible for him to apply new conditions in order to protect the timber instead of excluding the land from access completely. This really means that the Minister can agree that people shall be kept out at special times of the year. One of the things in mind was young plantations of Christmas trees in the month of December, which are frequently raided. It is easy to take action against a person because he is on land, but not because, being lawfully on land, he may be there to steal trees. There is the case for the new clause. I trust—and I have every reason to believe—that it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move the present Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I referred to this matter in the Second Reading debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the new clause which he has discussed with this Amendment. It is infinitely better than the old paragraph (c) of Clause 61 (5), which almost looked like blackmail on the owners of woodlands within access areas to compel them to dedicate their woodlands, whether they wished to or not. In the course of his remarks on the new clause the noble Lord mentioned that it was hoped people could be kept out of plantations which were destined for Christmas trees. May I tell him that anybody who desires to grow Christmas trees anywhere near

581
any access land is an extremely unwise individual, because whether or not there are pains and penalties in this Bill they will not he likely to reap the harvest of their enterprise. But while the new clause is a vast improvement on what we had before, and does give protection to the owners of private woodlands, I find it difficult to understand the mentality which allows the man who cultivates land for agricultural purposes exception for his cultivated land without any application on his part. Indeed, he is in the privileged position of having his land excepted when it is cultivated. But the man who cultivates his land to grow trees (and probably in so doing puts a great deal more money into that land) has to go through the rather complicated procedure outlined in this clause in order to ensure that his land is excepted from the access agreement. In my view—and I think in the view of a number of people—the man who cultivates land to grow trees is just as worthy of the same consideration as the man who cultivates land to grow food. The man who cultivates a crop which takes fifty to one hundred years to mature stands to suffer far greater loss if damage is done than the man who cultivates a crop which takes only one year to mature. With that reservation I welcome the improvement, although it does not go quite so far as I would wish.
LORD MERTHYR: I do not want to appear greedy, but I should have thought the land owners might have both the paragraph which it is proposed to leave out and the new clause. I would like to make it clear that I think the new clause is excellent and is one which will be welcomed by all woodland owners. We are grateful to the Government for introducing it into this Bill. I note that in subsection (3) of the new clause there will be power to vary the order when land which was access land at the date of the passing of the Bill is subsequently planted with trees. But in practice it will not be easy suddenly to exclude the public from land which they have had the privilege of entering, it may be for the last ten years. From the point of view of a woodland owner who had dedicated his land, the paragraph which is now proposed to he left out would, in my opinion, be preferable in every way. I do not think it can be denied that the woodland owner who
582
has dedicated will be worse off after the -passing of this Amendment than he is now. In my submission, retention of this paragraph would not injure or prejudice in any way any other woodland owner who has not dedicated. I cannot let this pass without putting in a plea that this paragraph could be retained without any injury to the Bill, the Government or any woodland or forestry owner. I regret very much, therefore, that this Amendment should be moved.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I may intervene again, the point of view put forward by my noble friend had not occurred to me before, but I am not at all certain that it is not sound sense, bearing on the argument I have used. If we retain this paragraph in Clause 61, we shall at least put some of the woodland owners in the same position as the agriculturists.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a preparatory Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 9, leave out from ("used") to ("for").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 15, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("the fore going paragraphs"). —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but I had better make one or two observations on it. It deals with the case of works on access land which are still under construction. Paragraphs (d) and (g) give exception only when a building is completed or when works are actually being used by a statutory undertaker. But owners will need to keep the public out while work is in progress, and this Amendment affords the necessary protection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 17, at end insert—
("() land as respects which development is in course of being carried out which will result in the land becoming such land as is specified!

583
in paragraph (d). (f) or (g) of this subsection; ").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (h), to insert:
"() land belonging to a river board or drainage authority and covered by works used for the purposes of any of their functions;
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to put the operational land of a river board or a drainage authority in the class of excepted land. It would seem that this land would have as much right to be excepted land as the operational land of a statutory authority. After all, this land might have on it large sluices and other such works, to which it might he disastrous if the public had too easy access. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Lord and I have got on so well together this evening that I regret that on this occasion I cannot give him what he is asking for. He may be interested to know that the matter has been discussed with the catchment boards associations—though I expect he already knows that. Wherever it is represented to the Minister before he confirms an access order that any works of a drainage authority should be excluded from the operation of the order, the Minister will consult with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries before coming to his decision. This, I feel certain, will ensure adequate protection of drainage interests.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is not the river board or the drainage board in fact a statutory authority?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I doubt it. The works of a drainage authority are not on a par with those of a statutory authority.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Proceedings consequent on review under last foregoing section]:
8.59 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (4), after "thereto" to insert:
"and shall furnish the local planning authority with a copy of any representations so made."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of when the Minister receives representations from the public about a local planning authority's statement that there is no need for any action to give the public access to land in their area. Then the Minister shall let the planning authority have copies of these representations and shall give them a chance of appearing at any inquiry or hearing which he holds to consider the representations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 10, after ("thereto") insert the said words.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 14, after ("made") insert ("and to the local planning authority").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Notification to Minister of action taken for securing public access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is little more than drafting. The purpose of it is to make clear that when the local planning authority prepare the map under Clause 64 showing what they have done to secure public access to open country in their area, they shall also show what action has been taken by other local authorities and by Ministers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 39, leave out from ("taken") to the end of line 40 and insert ("under this Part of this Act for enabling the public to have access to such land").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 [Access agreements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 14, leave out from ("land") to end of line.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is also a drafting Amendment. It is a case where we felt that the draftsman for once had been rather economising with words, so we decided to have the subsection redrafted with this addition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 30, at end insert—
("(Where an access agreement is made with one or some, but not all, of the persons having interests in the land to which the agreement relates, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply as respects the interests of the persons with whom the agreement is made, and shall continue so to apply notwithstanding any change in the persons entitled thereto, but shall not, as against the person for the time being entitled to any other interest in the land, operate so as to prejudice his rights as owner of that interest, or impose any restriction on him or confer any right against him.") —(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67:
Effect of access agreement or order on rights and liabilities of owners
(2) The operation of subsection (1) of section sixty-one of this Act in relation to any land shall not increase the liability, under any enactment not contained in this Act or under any rule of law, of a person interested in that land or adjoining land in respect of things done or omitted thereon.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() Upon the carrying out of any works incidental to the use of land as excepted land, such land shall become excepted land and. immediately upon the notification in writing to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situate by the owner or occupier thereof of the carrying out of such works, such land shall be excluded from the provisions of any access order or agreement in which it is comprised."
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments which stand in my name are ones
586
to which I attach considerable importance. The object of both of them, quite simply, is that the coming into operation of this Bill shall in no way conflict with the needs of increased agricultural production. I think that noble Lords opposite will agree that we have given this Bill a favourable reception. All admit that the granting of these amenities under this Bill affords a real improvement. At the same time, increased agricultural production is more than an amenity at the present day; it is a necessity. It is with that object that I move these two Amendments.
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will look upon the first one with favour, because he will recall that T asked him whether, when access land was made excepted land, it would be done by the overt act of carrying out works, or would the farmer have to expend much time going through various Ministries signing forms before he got his_ land excepted. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that the overt act would be sufficient, but he thought it desirable that the farmer should inform the planning committee. I said that I would endeavour to frame an Amendment to meet that point, and he wished me Godspeed in that endeavour. This is the endeavour I have made. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will either accept this Amendment or, as is the more general practice, say that he will produce something better that will have the same effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moves.—
Page 57, line 40, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: When one receives a double invitation, it is difficult to know what to do with it. I appreciate that the point was raised on Second Reading and I promised the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that I would certainly have the matter looked into. Perhaps it would he better if I set out what happens under the Bill when land becomes excepted. If an owner does any work on his land which brings it into any of the categories mentioned in Clause 51 (5) (for instance, erects buildings, carries on mineral workings, and so on), the land automatically becomes excepted. However, it is not thereby excluded front the order, but the practical effect is the same—namely, the rights which the public formerly enjoyed

587
on the land are withdrawn. I do not know whether Lord Cranworth feels that we ought to put this Amendment in the Bill, but my personal feeling—and he knows I am sympathetic to his Amendment—is that it is a question of fact whether the works which are incidental to, let us say, the quarrying, can actually be included in the category of "excepted land." This is in any case not a matter which can be dealt with in the Bill. It should be noted that a Government Amendment will ensure—and this I think will meet the noble Lord—that any land which is in course of development for building operations, or mineral workings, or which is being brought into use by statutory undertakers for the purpose of their undertaking, will also fall into the category of "excepted land." I hope the noble Lord does not feel it necessary now to press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Lord has adopted the second method which I thought it was more likely he would adopt. I regret very much that he has snot accepted this Amendment, because I think its acceptance would have given -more confidence to hill farmers and others who are doing what I am sure we all want them to do—namely, to bring forth -,production from the marginal lands. I think the inclusion of this Amendment would have given them confidence to do it. They would know that they could do it and that when they had done it their land would become excepted. But if the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, I do not feel that I am in a position to force it upon him, although I very much regret his decision in the matter.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before the noble Lord asks leave to withdraw his Amendment, it seems to me that the Amendment will do a great deal of good and can do no harm. It says:
"immediately upon the notification in writing to the local planning authority … such land shall be excluded."
It will he excluded the moment the work which makes it excepted land has been undertaken or has been started. But the authority concerned in the access area (which is the local authority), have to keep a record of the land which is access land and of the land which is excepted land; and if they were notified they
588
would promptly mark that off on their maps as soon as they were satisfied that it should be excepted land. Then in the case of anybody contravening the regulations there would be a record that it was excepted land which prevented his trespassing upon it. If anybody does not make the notification, the procedure as outlined in the Bill without this Amendment will still work, but it may not work quite so smoothly. Anybody who took the trouble to notify would be, to put it in familiar language, "batting on a good wicket" when anybody trespassed.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not quite sure how this really operates. As I see it, when you make land access land you draw a line round certain areas and say, "This should be access land," and then you mark off within that area certain areas of excepted land. Then somebody comes along and says, "I am going to reclaim 200 acres there. I am going to fertilise it with, perhaps, lime and slag, take a disc harrow over it and generally improve it." How does that land become excepted land on the map? Surely, there must be some declaration, or something has to happen; otherwise, on reference to the map, that land would be shown as access land.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I do not think that there is any great difficulty in the point which has been raised by the noble Earl. Access land is marked on the map and there are pockets here and there, where some activities have perhaps changed some of the access land into excepted land. Then there will be another spot marked on the map—there must be. I must admit that I am impressed by the arguments which have been used on this question. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, suggested that I was taking nearly the whole of the Bill back. Well, I would be prepared to take the whole of it back in order to get agreement, for this is a non-Party Bill. On this occasion, however, I feel it would be wrong simply to suggest to Lord Cranworth that he should withdraw the Amendment in order that we should reconsider the position. But I can tell him that I am prepared to look into the points which he and his colleagues have made. I hope he will not assume that that necessarily means that I am going to give something away. If, eventually, he goes away empty-handed,

589
I hope that he will not blame me on the Report stage.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should not dream of blaming the noble Lord. I thank him for the small comfort which be has given me, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.12 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) The operation of subsection (1) of section sixty-one of this Act in relation to any land shall not increase the liability to which a person interested in that land or adjoining land would have been subject under any enactment not contained in this Act or under any rule of law in respect of the state of that land or of the adjoining land, or of things done or omitted, if a person entering on that land for the purpose of open-air recreation had been a trespasser."
The noble Lord said: I realise what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will say upon this. He will say: "It is quite all right; this is already in the Bill." I agree. But I believe there is some legal authority for saying—probably, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr will substantiate my words about this—that not only should justice be done but justice should plainly be done. I venture to suggest that under the Bill as at present drafted no one could see that it is plainly done, because I myself had to ask many people what this clause moans. It seems to me most important that people should know what it means. There are two reasons for that. One is that it is necessary from the point of view of the farmer who is wondering whether he should or should not start keeping a herd of heifers with a hull. He might be put off by t fear of having to pay damages for a ling that might happen to people wh Tent on to the access land. He mi refrain from starting his herd, and did that, we should lose the production that is so all-important at the present time. On the other hand, if the ramblers, or whoever it may be who enter upon the land, do so not knowing what this means, they are being led there under false pretences, because they will enter upon the land thinking that they can take risks and will be to a certain extent insured by reason of the fact that if 'anything happens to them the farmer will have to pay them heavy compensation. So on the one hand, you would be getting people in on
590
false pretences, and, on the other, you would run the risk of losing production which we require so much just now.
I am not wedded to the particular form of this Amendment, but I am concerned that the clause should be made intelligible to the hill farmer, Who, after all is usually not very well educated, except in his own trade, and to the rambler, who is also often not well educated in literature. I find it extremely difficult to understand parts of this Bill and so do a number of your Lordships, and on the whole your Lordships are fairly well educated—I am not speaking for myself! Even if I did understand it, I venture to think that a hill farmer or a rambler would not. As I say, I am not wedded to my words, but I want the Bill to be such that the hill farmer or rambler can plainly understand it. I think these words would enable them so to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The operation of subsection (1) of section sixty-one of this Act in relation to any land shall not increase the liability to which a person interested in that land or adjoining land would have been subject under any enactment not contained in this Act or under any rule of law in respect of the state of that land, or of the adjoining land, and of things done or omitted, if a person entering on that land for the purpose of open-air recreation had been a trespasser.")—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lard Cranworth, that many parts of the B It have been obscure, but I am not sure that his Amendment is any less obscure. I have had some difficulty in knowing what it means, and not knowing what it meant I could not decide what I should do about it. Now I have some idea, though not much, of what the noble Lord means, and it would seem to me that the noble Lord would like to carry this a little farther than the Bill itself actually goes. I had to base my attitude to his Amendment on what I thought he was asking for, but in view of the explanation he has given I would again ask him to withdraw it and he and I can discuss it to see whether we cannot come to an agreement. He has taken a line I hardly expected from reading his Amendment, and in view of his interpretation I think we could find words that might fit in.
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Lord has again adopted the second course, and it is one which meets me entirely. I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved, in subsection (2) after "in respect of" to insert "the state thereof or of." The noble Duke said: This is almost the same point that was put forward in the previous Amendment and if the noble Lord would include this Amendment when he discusses this matter with my noble friend, I would be prepared to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 45, after ("of") insert ("the state thereof or of")—(The Duke of Rutland.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Here we have a little clarity. I thought that this Amendment might meet Lord Cranworth. If that is the case, my promise to discuss it with him could stand but need not stand, as I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE or RUTLAND: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope the noble Lord will still let me discuss this with him.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Certainly.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Suspension of public access to avoid exceptional risk of fire]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the clause:
"(2) For the purpose of section seventy-two of the Agriculture Act, 1947, the functions of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under this section shall be deemed to be functions relating to agriculture."
The noble Lord said: Clause 70 gives the Minister of Agriculture power to keep people off land in a hot dry spell in order to prevent fire. As the Bill stands, the Minister cannot delegate these powers and the matter would have to go up to the Ministry to obtain permission, by which time probably the land would have caught fire and been burned out. If my Amendment is accepted it will give the
592
Minister of Agriculture power to delegate authority to agricultural committees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The first step we took with regard to this Amendment was to consult the Minister of Agriculture who is closely involved. The result of that consultation was that the Minister did not consider that this was a suitable function for him to dedicate to the county committees. The whole point of the provision is to ensure speedy and impartial procedure for suspending public access in special circumstances. The Ministry think that the Minister himself ought to retain that power. I may add that since the Minister has no intention of delegating these functions it seems pointless to amend the Bill in order to give him power to do so, although it might be our point of view that if the Amendment were accepted he would not need to use the power. It could and probably would be argued that the existence of the specific power meant that it ought to be used, and for that reason the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning would prefer not to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I very much regret to hear that, because fires may happen very swiftly. One knows from bitter experience that it takes a long time to get a reply to a communication to Whitehall, and one would like to have some assurance that there will be machinery which will make certain that when there is a danger from fire people can be excluded at short notice.
LORD HAWKE: I do not think I have ever before heard an explanation in your Lordships' House which would lead one to believe that the present Minister has set himself up in perpetuity. Surely the suggestion that he refuses power to do something which his successor may well want to do (possibly advised by a different Parliamentary Under-Secretary) is most peculiar.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the delays which the noble Earl apprehends in matters of this kind are likely to occur. He and I, and certainly

593
the noble Earl on the Front Bench, can recall very prompt action in cases of foot and mouth disease and other emergencies, in which instances the Minister does not delegate his powers and acts exceedingly promptly. It is better that he should act rather than that it should be done through the medium of somebody else. I think this is the most expeditious way of dealing with an emergency.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the analogy with foot and mouth disease is somewhat strained. After all, foot and mouth disease is a notifiable disease and local action has to be taken at once in connection with it, regardless of the Ministry.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I remember an emergency occurring, I think, in Liverpool when I myself within about an hour made an order prohibiting a vast area.
LORD AMHERST or HACKNEY: I am sorry the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. In fact I am rather surprised at his reply. I thought he would probably say the Minister already had these powers under this Bill. But since presumably the Minister does not want these powers, I cannot force him to have them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70, agreed to.
Clause 71:
Compensation for access orders
71. Where the value of the interest of any person in land is depreciated in consequence of the coming into operation of an access order then subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act the local planning authority in whose area the land comprised in the order is situated shall pay to that person compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation:
Provided that nothing in this section shall confer on a person a right to compensation for depreciation of an interest in land, being land which is not comprised in the order or if so comprised is excepted land, except if and in so far as either—

(a) it is held with land comprised in the order which is not excepted land, or

9.24 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) it is land through or over which a public footpath or other means of access to land
594
comprised in an access agreement or an access order passes."
The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment to which some of my friends attach importance. Where an area of land is declared access land there is a power of obligation to make access to it. Such access might involve, and in fact is extremely likely to involve, a right of way close to farm buildings or over a meadow. It is there that the real danger lies. After all, when it comes to the question of damage, the damage to crops or fruit trees, or anything like that, will amount to only £20, or £50 at the most. But there will be much greater damage in relation to an attested herd which loses its status. That damage might run into tens of thousands of pounds. That is something about which I think we ought to be careful. On some of this new access land, which, as I say, is very likely to run near farm buildings or through meadows it might well be that there is an attested herd, and great damage might he suffered by leaving a gate open. So far as I can see, that is outside the damage list in the Bill. I may be wrong about this, but that is how I am advised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Cramworth.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: As the noble Lord has said, this is an attempt to add another set of circumstances in which a claim for compensation might be made. This point needs to be kept in mind: that a man might already qualify in one or other of the existing classes specified in the Bill, without the addition of this further class. Or if the public footpath has been created under the Bill, compensation will have been paid under Clause 46 in respect of depreciation caused thereby. I was not very clear—and I am still not clear—why it is suggested that a right to compensation should be given to this class of land. It is true that paths which were not used quite as much in the past may be used a little mere in the future, and, being used more frequently, there is a certain element of increased, risk by the greater usage, For that reason, consideration ought to be given to it. However, I hope we are not going to base our claims on whether a path becomes more or less popular as a result of this Bill. It could

595
work both ways. It is felt that the provisions already in the Bill make reasonable compensation possible. I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thought I made it clear that what I was concerned with was a new path which was made to give access to the access land. It does not seem to me that there is a claim in respect of that. I agree with the noble Lord about the old path, but I am speaking of where a new path is made, and where it is more or less obligatory to make it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: In that case, I think he is well looked after under Clause 46 —at least, I am so advised.
LORD CARRINGTON: Surely Clause 46 provides for compensation for damage that might be done. That is not what my noble friend suggests.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think the noble Lord realises how serious this point is, when he talks about possible compensation after five years for damage that may well amount to hundreds of pounds.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: They are interim payments.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes; but the damage may amount to hundreds of pounds. I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates the point which my noble friend Lord Cranworth has raised. A pedigree cow to-day may be worth anything upwards of £150, and possibly a good deal more. That cow, if it is not attested, might just as well not be pedigree. You cannot sell her in any reputable pedigree market. Therefore, what happens when she loses her attestation is that she goes to market and probably fetches between £20 and £40. That means a heavy loss on one cow. Therefore, if attestation of a herd is lost, many hundreds of pounds are involved. I know the noble Lord would not treat the matter casually if he appreciated it. He does not appreciate what it means to the actual working farmer. So far as I can see, it is not covered by Clause 46.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I fully appreciate what is involved, and can understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in moving this Amendment. What can I do but repeat that, if it is a new path created solely because of an access agreement, that is covered by Clause 46?
LORD CRANWORTH: I have been reading Clause 46 again, and it seems to me to cover contingent damage; it does not cover damage which actually occurs. I want to see compensation for what actually takes place. Suppose an aborting cow gets in the herd and the whole herd gets contagious abortion. The farmer suffers immense damage. That is the man T want to protect, and anything you can give him which will cover him will satisfy me.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I must try to visualise the position. Here is the field and here are the attested cows. A path goes through this field which may endanger the cows. The farmer may have to put those cows in another field. If that is so, he is compensated for it. Surely that should cover the matter the noble Lord has in mind. His cows have gone to another field as the result of a path which goes through the land, and he is compensated.
LORD CRANWORTH: Does the noble Lord really suggest that if a man has a meadow in which he runs these valuable cows, and a right of way is put through that meadow, he has to take them away and put them somewhere else? That seems a little bit "tough" on him. If he does not do so, he gets no compensation. I am sorry, but I cannot see the justice of it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: There is certainly no compulsion on him, but I should have thought it was a wise precaution.
EARL DE LA WARR: We do not want to be difficult on this point. Let us try and get something quite concrete. Let us suppose that a man has a herd of twenty pedigree cows and that they average a value of £150—that is, £3,000 for the herd. Now let us suppose that as a result of this new path being made something happens—a gate is left open,

597
or something of that sort—and those cattle get mixed with ordinary cattle and either get abortion or infected with tuberculosis. Those cattle deteriorate from a value of approximately £3,000 to a few hundred pounds. When is that farmer to receive compensation of something well over £2,000? Is he going to get it immediately? How does that work as the Bill stands?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am sure all your Lordships have sympathy with the man of limited means when something like this suddenly happens. The Bill provides that he would have no difficulty in claiming an interim payment. But I must ask your Lordships to read subsection (1) of Clause 46. Indeed, I will read it myself:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, if, on a claim made in accordance with this section, it is shown that the value of an interest of any person in land is depreciated, or that any person has suffered damage by being disturbed in his enjoyment of land, in consequence of the coming into operation of a public path order, a diversion order or an extinguishment order, the authority by whom the order was made shall pay to that person compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or damage."
I am sure the case which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has in mind is covered by Clause 46 (1).
LORD CRANWORTH: The noble Lord tells me it is covered, and I must take his word for it, but I have a nasty lingering doubt in my mind. However, if he tells me he is satisfied, I must be satisfied too, and I feel I have nothing more to do but to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Claims for compensation and interest]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Here, I think, there is some consolation for the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. This Amendment deals with a rather technical matter which he has had very much in mind. Compensation in respect of an access order will be payable five years after the date of the order and will be payable in respect of depreciation in the value of the land assessed with due regard to the experience of the effects of the exercise
598
by the public during that period of their rights of access. The claim will be in two steps: first, a claim to be entitled to compensation to be made at once; and, second, an application for payment to be made at the end of the five years. It may be expected in some cases that the five years' experience of the effects of the order will prove that no depreciation has been suffered by reason of the order and no application for the payment of compensation will be made. It will therefore be to the advantage of all concerned that proof of title to the land should be deferred from the first to the second step, so that proof is undertaken only where it is material—namely, where compensation will be payable. As drafted proof of title would be required in every case at the first step in the claim, this Amendment and the consequential Amendment in line 47 secure the desired alteration described above. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 29, leave out from ("made") to ("as") in line 3C.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 47, leave out from ("and") to ("regulations") in line 2 on page 63.— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, after Clause 74 to insert the following new clause:
Payments in respect of damage to crops, etc.
". Where damage is caused to livestock agricultural crops or agricultural buildings or to woodlands orchards or other plantations in consequence of persons being on land in pursuance of an access order and such damage exceeds the sum of fifty pounds the local planning authority in whose area the land comprised in the order is situated shall, provided that notice in writing of the damage having occurred and of intention to claim in respect thereof shall have been sent to the local planning authority within seven days of the occurrence of the damage, and provided that particulars in writing of the damage showing the amount of the claim in money shall have been sent to the local planning authority within twenty-one days of the occurrence of the damage, pay to the person suffering the damage compensation equal the amount of the damage."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Rutland and myself. I am certain that this sort of damage is not covered by Clause 46. Your Lordships will remember that two evenings ago, from all quarters of the House, it was very much desired that no additional burdens should fall on the occupier of land by virtue of this Bill in any of its Parts. Mention was made on that occasion of the increased standard of maintenance, improvement and appearance of buildings which might be ordered by local planning authorities in the national parks. This Amendment refers to access land. The increased use by the public for recreational purposes of access land may undoubtedly cause loss to livestock in the way referred to by my noble friend Lord Cranworth. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has explained, the compensation payable is payable only at the end of five years and is based on the depreciation of the interest in land. Of course, there are cases of hardship which may be paid at once, but it is not clear that either of those items will cover the damage caused to livestock by persons in pursuance of an access order. Livestock of all sorts—herds and flocks—will be either in or near those access areas, and damage of exactly the same type as described by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, may be suffered.
I do not see how under either the compensation or hardship clause adequate compensation can be paid for the heavy losses which have been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, because this is not exactly depreciation of the value of land; it is loss of livestock—and the two things are not the same. To my mind it is possible that if a man put in a claim for loss suffered in his livestock the local planning authority would say: "We are going to pay you only for the depreciation of your interest in land." The land will not be depreciated because somebody's attested herd has got mixed up with a lot of unattested cattle. That will be depreciation of the herd, not of the land. I think that is a point of very considerable substance, to be further investigated before the next stage of this Bill.
In proof of what I say, I should like to mention the Eleventh Report of the Select
600
Committee on Estimates, which drew specific attention to the losses suffered by county agricultural committees on farming land owing to what they described as "the carelessness of townspeople." Those words are drawn from an official publication, and if it is true that townspeople are careless on land owned by agricultural committees I fear that they may be equally careless on access land. Secondly, the Hobhouse Committee in their Report did suggest that compensation for farming losses on access areas should be paid in special cases when they occurred. In view of those two authoritative quotations, I hope the noble Lord will give us some assurance that either this is covered—I do not see how it is—or, if it is not covered, that he will make some arrangements to go into it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 74 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I sometimes head different Amendments with my classification of them. I have headed this one "last ditch." But having listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, I have entirely changed my mind. I am quite prepared to consult with him, though he will appreciate that I cannot accept his wording now. I am prepared to consult with him to find an agreed form of words to meet the point he has in mind.
LORD HYLTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I hope he will include somebody with greater knowledge of technical agricultural considerations than perhaps I myself possess. This is a hill farming and marginal land question, and I do not pretend that I am a qualified authority on that subject.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment may I say that I do not believe this Amendment covers this question (I do not think it is covered anywhere else in the Bill): that if a farmer's cattle stray on to the highway he is liable to be fined, whoever lets them stray. It is liable to happen to anybody. I do not know whether it can be covered in the form of compensation or relief.
LORD HYLTON: In view of the assurance given by the noble Lord, I think I had better withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Acquisition by local authorities of land for public access]:
9.46 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2) after "any other land" to insert "not being excepted land." The noble Lord said: This is intended merely as a clarifying Amendment. This clause appears to give local authorities almost unlimited powers of acquisition of land. Under the clause as it stands they can acquire any land contiguous or adjacent to the land mentioned in subsection (1). I hope that that is not the intention of this clause. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 20, after ("land") insert ("not being excepted land").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Again I had to wait to hear what Lord Amherst had to say, on his Amendment, and again I feel that to be quite fair to him I would prefer further conversations on this matter. I cannot give any definite undertaking, but I am anxious not to reject it here and now. I do not want him to take too much for granted, but there may be some way to ensure what he has in mind. On that assurance perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In those circumstances I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Maps of local authority land subject to public access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The Committee will appreciate that the map prepared under Clause 79 is intended to show the public all the land to which they are given access under the Bill. This Amendment makes good an omission in the clause as drafted, by providing for land acquired by Ministers under Clause 78, as well as land acquired by local authorities under Clause 77, to be shown on the map. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 38, leave out ("the last but one foregoing section") and insert ("either
602
of the last two foregoing sections").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a preparatory Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("at").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is designed to enable panning authorities to show at the approaches of access land not only the reproductions is of the access map, for which provision has already been made, but also notices specifying any restrictions on the public access to the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 20, at end insert—

("(a) reproductions of the map on an appropriate scale,

(b) notices specify rig any restrictions on access to the land or any part thereof, whether the restrictions have effect by virtue of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act or otherwise.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

Clause 79, as amended agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 79 insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to woodlands
".—(1) If, on the submission of an access order to the Minister for c3nfirmation, a representation or objection is duly made as respects any land—
(a) that the land is used, or about to be brought into use, for the growing of timber for commercial purposes, and that the use or proposed use of the lint as aforesaid will be substantially prejudiced by the application of the provisions of section sixty-one of this Act to the land, or
(b) that the land is used for the growing of timber so as to be of value for the amenity of the neighbourhood and that the growth or regeneration of the timber will be substantially prejudiced as aforesaid,
then subject to the provisions of this section if the Minister is satisfied that the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection are fulfilled he shall not confirm the order so as to apply the said provisions to the land.
(2) Where, as respects land comprised in an access agreement, it is represented to the Minister, and the Minister is satisfied, that the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of the last foregoing subsection are fulfilled, then subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) the Minister shall notify to the authority by whom the agreement was made the fact that he is satisfied as aforesaid, and thereupon the authority shall vary the agreement so as to exclude the land;

(b) the fact that the agreement is expressed to be irrevocable shall not prevent its variation so as to exclude the land; and

(c) if the concurrence of any party to the agreement other than the said authority, or of the successor in title to his interest, cannot be obtained to the variation of the agreement as aforesaid, the authority may by order made with the approval of the Minister vary the agreement.

(3) Where, as respects land comprised in an access order (whether made by the Minister or by a local authority), it is represented to the Minister, and the Minister is satisfied, that the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled, then subject to the provisions of this section the Minister shall make an order varying the access order so as to exclude the land.
(4) Before coming to a conclusion on any such representation as is mentioned in the two last foregoing subsections the Minister shall either cause a local inquiry to be held or afford to the person by whom the representation was made an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held or the person appointed as aforesaid, as the case may be.
(5) In determining whether the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section are fulfilled in the case of any proposed access order, the Minister shall have regard to the provisions of subsection (3) of section sixty-one of this Act; and references in this section to varying an agreement or order so as to exclude land shall include references to varying an agreement or order by the imposition of such restrictions under the said subsection (3) as may be specified by the Minister as requisite for the purposes of this section.
(6) In this section the expression 'timber' includes trees of every description, and also saleable underwood; but notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section those provisions shall not apply where the use or proposed use mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is such that the land is or will become agricultural land."—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 80 [Provisions as to danger areas]:
LORD MACDONALD OF CAVAENYSGOR: This is an Amendment
604
which is consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 46, after ("which") insert ("paragraph (a) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The next Amendment is also consequential on the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 1, after ("applies") insert ("or as respects land held by the authority to which paragraph (b) of that subsection applies").— (Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is a drafting Amendment. It corrects a misprint. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 16, leave out the second ("of") and insert ("or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Power of local planning authority to contribute to work carried out by other persons]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 27, after first ("in") insert ("subsection (4) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 85 agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 85 to insert the following new clause:
Registration orders and agreements in local Land Charges Register
".—(1) Forthwith after the making of

(a) an order designating an area as a National Park and an order varying the same under Part II of this Act,

(b) an agreement that land should be managed as a Nature Reserve under Part III of this Act,

(c) the making of a public path agreement under Part IV of this Act,

605

(d) the making of a public path order under Part IV of this Act,

(e) an access agreement under Part V of this Act,

(f) an access order under Part V of this Act,

and forthwith after the approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route under Part IV of this Act, such orders, agreements and proposals shall be registered in the manner provided under subsection (3) of this section in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land to which the order agreement or proposals relate to any part thereof is situated, or, if that land or any part thereof is situated in the administrative county of London, by the proper officer of the London County Council.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Minister or other authority forthwith after any order has been made to notify that fact to the proper officer of any council by whom the order is required to be registered as aforesaid and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
3) The power conferred by subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section."
The noble Earl said: I think that an Amendment somewhat along these lines was put down in another place, and the Minister said that he was prepared to consider an Amendment moved in this Committee. This Amendment, I consider, speaks for itself. Your Lordships will see that it is not merely for the convenience of lawyers who do conveyancing work, but it would also be a great convenience for the protection of vendors and purchasers of land to know in fact what has been done under this Bill with regard to designated areas, national park areas or nature reserves, also in respect of public footpaths, access orders, and so on. I do not stand on the drafting of this Amendment. I am sure that if the noble Lord approves the principle, the Government draftsmen will probably be able to do a great deal better than I have been able to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 85 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is a very technical matter and those who are competent to judge advise that this would not be a good thing to do. The consequences would be more harmful than useful. As the noble Earl pointed out, the object of the Amendment is to protect the purchasers of land by placing on
606
the register the rights over land which are established under the Bill. The Land Charges Registration Act, 1925, set up machinery under which charges on land could be registered so that a person purchasing land could look at the register and see whether there were any charges on the land, the penalty being that if a charge was not registered then it would not be valid against the purchaser. Undoubtedly, some orders and agreements under this Bill will be Charges that are registrable under existing law, and about these no difficulty will arise. But there are other burdens, as I may call them, established by the Rill which are not registrable.
There are two ways of dealing with these cases. One is to follow the precedent of some recent Acts, which have provided that certain orders and agreements must be entered on the register but without creating them land charges in the technical sense. That means that the penalty would not attach. The impression of expert conveyancers is that this would not have a good effect, because it would mean that the register could not be relied on. On the other hand—and I think this is the object of the noble Earl's Amendment—if under this Bill any order or agreement was made a land charge, with the penalty attached to it, and was not registered, as in the case of a right of way, then the purchaser would take free of the burden and the rights of the public would be lost: in the ordinary way it is a private right which is lost. The ordinary method of conveyancing is for the purchaser's solicitor to make a requisition, and I am advised that that is a perfectly satisfactory way of dealing with this matter.
With one exception, provision exists for obtaining knowledge of these orders and agreements under the Bill because they are made accessible at the office of the local planning authority and can be there inspected by solicitors, who are in that way able to discover what burdens there are on the land. The one exception is an order designating an area of exceptional beauty, but to put this right we have tabled an Amendment which will bring that within the same category as the other burdens and will make the order available at the office of the local planning authority with the others. I am sure that is much the better way of dealing

607
with the matter, and I hope it will satisfy the noble Earl.
LORD HYLTON: The noble Lord said that certain of these items would be registrable on the local register. Could he tell the House which those will be?
LORD CHORLEY: I am advised that there may be certain charges under the Bill which will be registrable in the ordinary way as land charges.
LORD HYLTON: Which? The noble Earl's Amendment is for agreements and proposals in paragraphs (a) to (f) to be registered. The noble Lord has just told us that some will be and some will not.
LORD CHORLEY: I was not specifically referring to the items in the noble Earl's Amendment. What I am advised is that some orders or agreements under the Bill will be registrable as land charges. For example, the local planning authority will be entering into agreements with land owners, perhaps in connection with the provision of accommodation, and the agreement might well provide for an easement over land, which would be registrable in the ordinary way as a charge under the Land Charges Act.
EARL DE LA WARR: Would that be the case with an access agreement?
LORD CHORLEY: I would not like to say offhand.
EARL DE LA WARR: As he cannot deal with this point now would the noble Lord be good enough to look into it?
LORD CHORLEY: I will certainly look into it.
LORD HYLTON: I think that would be better, because, after all, the Amendment does specify proposals in paragraphs (a) to (f) and the noble Lord is unable to tell us whether any of them will be registrable. That is the point of my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps the noble Lord could answer our questions on Report, and I will withdraw the Amendment now.
LORD CHORLEY: I will do that.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86:
Designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
(2) Where the Commission propose to make an order under this section they shall consult with every local authority whose area includes any part of the area to which the proposed order is to relate, and shall then, before making the order, publish, in such manner as appears requisite to them for informing persons and bodies of persons concerned, notice that they propose to make the order, indicating the effect of the order and stating the time within which and manner in which representations with respect thereto may be made to the Commission, and shall consider any representations duly made.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, under this Amendment it is proposed to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1) which defines an area of outstanding natural beauty as one which, by reason of its small extent or for any other reason, is unsuitable for designation as a national park. It is felt that this is rather unfortunate. It draws the definition a little too tightly, because it might prevent the Commission from designating as an area of outstanding beauty an area of country which could not be said to be unsuitable for a national park but which was not so suitable as one of the areas specified in the Hobhouse Report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 44, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 46.—,(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to omit subsections (2) (3) and (4) and to insert:
(2) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act relating to the making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of an order designating a National Park shall apply to the making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of an order designating an area as an area of outstanding natural beauty."
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to detain your Lordships long over this Amendment. I move it only to get an answer to a problem that has puzzled me. I cannot understand why the procedure for designating an area of outstanding natural beauty should be different from the procedure for designating a national park. Doubtless the noble Lord can tell me. It seemed to be rather a misfortune that there should be two different processes to effect similar objects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 5, leave out from the beginning to end of line 25 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD CHORLEY: I think the answer is fairly clear. In the case of an area of outstanding natural beauty there are no interests affected in the way in which interests are affected in the case of national parks. In the case of a national park, all sorts of interests would be affected under the town planning arrangements, and matters of that kind, and therefore it is essential that the rather elaborate procedure laid down in the Schedule should be gone through. But designation of an area as one of outstanding natural beauty does not affect interests in that way, and therefore it is quite unnecessary that this procedure should be carried out.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is there no area of natural beauty that may not be affected in this way? I do not know what an area of natural beauty is. Surely it may well contain some parts of agricultural land and things of that sort.
LORD CHORLEY: It is not affected by all the different provisions which relate to national parks, and therefore interests of owners are not affected.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Designation as an area of natural beauty does not give access, does it?
LORD CHORLEY: No.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his answer, but I still do not understand what are the differences. I suppose there are various things like setting up public-houses, and so on.
LORD CHORLEY: No, nothing of the kind.
LORD CRANWORTH: Anyway, I have the information, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: If saying a place is a beautiful place is to mean anything, presumably something happens when you have said it. It may be only to restrict development there; but if you restrict development there, then you do affect values. Surely it is a matter of some importance.
LORD CHORLEY: There are a number of points in the Bill which refer
610
to matters which have to be drawn to the attention of the National Parks Commission in order that in proper cases they may make representations. But no legal interests are affected and, therefore, the procedure which is necessary in the case of national parks is not involved in those areas.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord in his last statement, because my next Amendment, which I now beg to move, brings up one of the interests which he says do not exist. It relates to the question of roads within a national park area, where traffic which would otherwise be entitled to the full use of the roads, may be restricted. The purpose of my Amendment is to try and bring about the same procedure in the case of areas of natural beauty as in the case of the national parks. We are pleading with the Government to have precisely the same procedure in both cases. I cannot see why it should not be so. I do not understand, any more than other noble Lords who have spoken, what an area of natural beauty is. I do ask the Government to consider this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 8, leave out from ("published") to ("notice") in line 10, and insert ("in the London Gazette and in one or more newspapers published and circulating in the area").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD GIFFORD: I would like briefly to support this Amendment. Surely, in effect, these areas of natural beauty are small national parks. Therefore, it seems to me, as my noble friend has said, that the rights of traffic should be considered, and that the same procedure should be adopted as in the case of national parks.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Earl has used the term "interest" in a non-legal sense. No doubt people are interested from the point of view of the roads, but that is not a legal interest of the type to which I was referring in my answer to Lord Cranworth. This is a different point. I agree with the noble Earl that it is desirable that there should be notification in the local papers as well as in the London Gazette, and I am happy to accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord.
EARL HOWE: This concerns precisely the same point as in the previous Amendment which the noble Lord has just accepted. It is to bring the same procedure into operation as in the case of national parks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 25, at end insert ("and the provisions in that behalf of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as to the confirmation coming into operation and validity of orders confirmed by the Minister under the authority of this section").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: With respect to the noble Earl, when the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, moved his Amendment I was unable to accept it. This is really the same Amendment, the object being to apply all the rather elaborate procedure of the First Schedule to these areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Government view is that it is unnecessary and, indeed, would be inappropriate. I hope the noble Earl will treat the matter as did the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Having regard to what the noble Lord has said, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment ensures that copies of an order designating an area of outstanding natural beauty can be inspected at the offices of every joint planning board, county council, county borough council or county district council concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 39, at end insert—
("() It shall be the duty of the Commission to secure that copies of any order such as is mentioned in this section shall be available, at the office of the Commission, at the offices of each local authority whose area includes any part of the area to which the order relates, and at such other place or places in or near that area as the Commission may determine, for inspection by the public at all reasonable times.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to.
Clause 89:
Local authority byelaws
(2) A local planning authority may, as respects land in their area belonging to them
612
and comprised either in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty, or as respects land or a waterway to which the public are given access by an agreement or order, or in consequence of acquisition, under Part V of this Act, make byelaws for the preservation of order, for the prevention of damage to the land or waterway or anything thereon or therein, and for securing that persons resorting thereto will so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the land or waterway by other persons.
LORD CHORLEY: The object of this Amendment is to omit the specific powers given to local planning authorities by subsection (1) of Clause 89 to make bylaws restricting traffic on foot or on bridle ways in their area. There is already sufficient power in existing legislation to deal with traffic on the footpaths. Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, specifically prohibits the driving of motor vehicles on any bridleways or footways and imposes a penalty of £5 for the first conviction and £10 for each succeeding conviction. Bicycles can also be dealt with under Section 249 of the Local Government Act of 1933. It is therefore felt unnecessary to have these specific powers, and this Amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 36, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (2) to omit "belonging to them and." The noble Lord said: This question raises the point of making bylaws in the area of a national park. The position is not clear since the passing of an Amendment earlier in the week on page 4, line 26. The Amendment was moved, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and passed on a Division. It has some bearing on this clause. A good deal of importance attaches to this Amendment, and I think it is most desirable that it should be possible to have bylaws made not only in respect of land which belongs to the Commission but in respect of land within a national park. It may be said at once that you cannot make bylaws regarding land which does not belong to you, but there are several precedents for so doing. After all, until a moment ago, this very Bill did that in a subsection which has just been left out—and that had passed through another place.
Moreover, there is a precedent—the best precedent I have been able to find in Section 18 (1) of the Water Act of 1945, which gives powers to authorities to make bylaws in respect of land in a water area which neither belonged to nor was rented by nor leased to the authority. So there is precedent for this. If the bylaws are to have full and useful effect I feel it would be preferable for them to cover all the land in a national park and not only land belonging to the Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 42, leave out ("belonging to them and").—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I do not know what the Government's attitude will be, but I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, because I do not know what he expects local authorities to do. We have been told time and time again that this Bill confers no new rights on the public except in specific cases. If we are going to start making bylaws for land where the public have no right, it must create an impression among the public that they have rights there. I should have thought that owners would take strong objection and would probably go to the courts on an action for ultra vires. I quite appreciate that the point is important, For years past, people have walked about on this land although they had no legal right to do so, and the owners have not objected to their doing so provided they did not do damage. I quite appreciate the fact that what the noble Lord fears may happen is that that practice will be extended and serious damage done. I think that the only possible way to deal with the matter is for the owner or farmer himself to apply for an access agreement to be made, so that he may enjoy the protection of the Second Schedule of this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I think that, paradoxical though it may seem, it will be from owners and farmers eventually that the demand for land to be regarded as access land will come.
LORD CHORLEY: I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said. We had some discussion about this matter on Tuesday when I asked the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, whether he really wanted the private land, so to speak, to be covered by the bylaws, and he indicated that he did.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not think so.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Viscount, Lord Gage has put his finger on the point.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I stand to be corrected, but I do not think I did say that. I am not in favour of this Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I must have misunderstood the noble Lord, but from an Amendment he moved quite early on understood that that was what he was indicating. But surely the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is right. If the local planning authority make bylaws regarding such matters as litter, camping and the lighting of fires—the sort of cases to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred—which cover the whole of the land in the national parks area (and noble Lords will remember that the great mass of the land in all the national parks areas is going to remain private land) surely the implication is that the ordinary person has the right to come on that land. When the owner says to him: "You are trespassing on my land," he will reply, "I am not lighting a fire or throwing litter about or camping. I am not doing any of these things and I am entitled to be on the land." If proceedings are brought against him it will be exceedingly difficult to say that that is not a reasonable point of view for him to take up. Quite apart from that, it would subject the local authority to an intolerable burden in enforcing the bylaws. It is going to be difficult to keep the wardens on the access land, which will be open land fairly easily covered. But the great mass of the private land will be agricultural land, woodlands, private park-lands and land of that kind. The burden of keeping such areas policed in order that the bylaws may be enforced would be quite beyond the capacity of the local authorities concerned, because after all they are local authorities in rather poor parts of the country without very large financial resources behind them. In those circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will think that this is not an Amendment which the Government ought to accept.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is one of the Amendments upon which I was particularly keen, but, on further consideration, after listening to the noble Lords,

615
Lord Gage and Lord Chorley, I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to get round the problems which have been raised. I think it was I who said I was quite prepared for wardens to have powers on private land, and I still feel that most of the damage that will be done is going to be done by people going on private land. I should like to see wardens have some power for dealing with cases of that kind. I cannot see that this particular Amendment will solve that problem. During the last two days we have asked the Government to reconsider a good many points and see what they can do on Report stage. It seems to me that on this occasion it is for us to re-think our ideas for Report and see whether we cannot find some Amendment which will meet the point. The Government may admit there is some justification on our side which undoubtedly has not been covered by this Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I agree with the noble Earl. After we have had an opportunity of studying the effect of the Amendment, it may be necessary to put something down on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved to add to subsection (2)
"or with the lawful pursuits or activities of persons living or being in the land or using the waterway."
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Hawke has unfortunately had to leave the House. He has asked me to move these two Amendments in his name on the Marshalled List. The purpose of both these Amendments is pointed to the same direction. It is to see that these bylaws that we have been discussing are so framed as to safeguard the activities of those who work and live in these areas. The particular purpose of the first Amendment is clearly stated in the words on the Marshalled List. It may be that that purpose is already covered in the clause as it now stands, but that depends on what the noble Lord when he replies says by way of interpretation of the two words "other persons." If he says that the phrase "other persons" covers what my noble friend has in mind, then this Amendmen may not be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am advised that what the noble Lord has just said is quite right, and that the words "other persons" cover the types of person to whom he has referred.
LORD ROCHDALE: I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.26 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Bye-laws made under this section may provide for the imposition upon offenders against the same of such reasonable penalties as the local authority think fit not exceeding the sum of twenty pounds for each offence, and in the case of a continuing offence a further penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each day after written notice of the offence from the local authority; but all such bye-laws imposing any penalty shall be so framed as to allow of the recovery of any sum less than the full amount of the penalty.
Nothing in this section shall authorise the imposition or recovery under any bye-laws made in pursuance hereof of any greater penalties than the penalties in the section specified."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has the same main purpose as the previous one, and seeks to ensure that if anyone does contravene one or other of these bylaws it shall be within the power of the local authority to impose a fine not exceeding £20. As the Bill now stands, under the Local Government Act of 1933 the tine that any local authority can impose will be limited to £5, which in point of fact, is expressly confirmed further on, in Clause 106 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochdale.)
LORD CHORLEY: I would like to make two points in reply to the noble Lord. In the first place, as he has pointed out, £5 is the penalty established in the Act of 1933, and it applies over a wide range of offences against the bylaws. The Government's view is that it would be wrong to amend it just in respect of this particular matter. It may well be that with the altered value of money £5 is no longer a very adequate penalty, but, if that is so, it should he altered over the whole range of the Act of 1933 and not only in regard to this particular matter.

617
The other point is that the Government hope that these bylaws will be enforced by persuasion rather than by penalties. The noble Lord will remember that an educational obligation is put upon the National Parks Commission, and that the local authorities will employ wardens for the purpose of persuading people rather than of threatening them. It is hoped that that method of approach will be succesful and that it will not be necessary to fall back upon monetary penalties. I hope in those circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that here we come up against the fundamental difference between the point of view of the townsman and that of the countryman. The townsman does not appreciate what damage can be done. The noble Lord says that it is hoped that good behaviour can be brought about by persuasion. I do not think he realises what is at stake for the farmer in this matter. I can tell the noble Lord that the representatives of the farmers feel extremely strongly on this point. Their losses may go into many hundreds of pounds or even thousands, as I have told your Lordships before. The noble Lord merely says that £5 is all that is possible under the normal bylaws, but that now we may have to take account of the fact that the value of money has changed and alter the amount. This does not make sense at all to the farmer who to-day, by this Bill, is subjected to far greater risks than ever before. I ask the noble Lord to take this Amendment a little more seriously than he has done, and to see whether he cannot meet us in regard to it.
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that I cannot do anything for the noble Earl on this Amendment. It is a matter of too wide application.
LORD ROCHDALE: Like the noble Earl, I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to see his way to accept this Amendment. He has said that he hopes that most of these cases will be dealt with by persuasion rather than by fines. That means that only a limited number will be dealt with by fines. Probably those cases will be the most important ones and, therefore, it seems to me the more essential that where fines are imposed in a few cases they should be such as to make the individual feel the
618
gravity of his offence. In other words, I think that £5 is little or not enough and that the figure should be considerably more. I do not suppose that I can press this Amendment now, but I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the matter. I realise that there is a big issue involved Could he possibly give us any form of assurance in this connection?
LORD MACDONALD oF GWAENYSGOR: This is an Amendment on which we feel just as strongly, perhaps, as the mover of the Amenament and his supporters feel. The maximum penalty is £5, and we are inclined to think that it would give a wrong impression if, on this occasion and in dealing with a matter of this kind, we were to raise that maximum at once to £20. The noble Earl, I am sure, feels quite as strongly as Lord Rochdale, and I understand that unless some kind of assurance that the matter will receive further consideration is given, he is inclined to maintain that this Amendment must go to a Division. I have no desire that there should be a Division at this time of night, and, although I have nothing to add to what Lord Chorley has said, if it would help I am prepared to promise that some further consideration will be given to this matter.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We are very much obliged to the noble Lord. No doubt, the people who fear that they may suffer considerable damage feel very strongly about this matter. I, personally, appreciate the point that we want some sort of uniform level for bylaws of this kind. As the noble Lord has kindly said that he will give this further consideration, perhaps there will be an opportunity for us to discuss it between now and the Report stage.
LORD ROCHDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon a previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 11, leave out ("subsection (1) or subsection (2) of")—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 1, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 [Wardens]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a consequential, drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 9, leave out ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91:
Wardens
91.—(1) A local authority may appoint such number of persons as may appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient to act as wardens as respects any land or waterway in relation to which byelaws made by the authority are in force under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the last but one foregoing section, or in relation to which the authority have power to make such byelaws.
10.34 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1) after "expedient" to insert
"whether or not it be made a condition of such appointment that such persons shall be sworn in as special constables."
The noble Lord said: The question here is whether or not, as was recommended by the Hobhouse Committee, there should be provision to give wardens in access land the powers of special constables where desirable. I know that there is some difference of opinion about this matter. Personally, I feel strongly that unless wardens do have these powers in certain circumstances and places, their use will be extremely limited. If you look at the Schedule of the penalties at the end of the Bill and then consider that the wardens, without the powers of special constables, will not even be empowered to ask for the names and addresses of offenders, I think you will agree that it is desirable to make provision for giving them such powers. Whilst I agree that this is largely a matter of education, and everybody hopes there will be few unpleasant incidents, it cannot be denied that we must face a certain hard core of bad cases where people will offend and
620
resist and refuse to give their names, and where nothing effective can be done unless the wardens have these powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 23, after ("expedient") insert ("whether or not it be made a condition of such appointment that such persons shall be sworn in as special constables").—(Lord Merthyr.)
10.35 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: We discussed this matter on Second Reading. The noble Lord proposes that the wardens should be given the powers of special constables. Of course, that would not give them very extensive powers; it would not include the power of arrest, which by a later Amendment the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, proposes to give them. The Government's view is that this problem is much better dealt with on the lines of persuasion. If a serious situation arose, in which there was felonious conduct Or a breach of the peace through gangs of hooligans getting completely out of hand—a situation which so far as I know has not arisen—then not only would it be possible for any citizen to intervene but surely, in such circumstances, the proper police force could be brought to the scene reasonably quickly, and that would be the way to handle it. Our view is that it would be wrong to give the wardens special powers. If it were afterwards found that they ought to have these powers, then I think these powers could be conferred upon them by the Home Secretary without any special provision in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: I think the noble Lord is too optimistic. If he really thinks that there are not going to be any of these cases he is being deceived. Persuasion is all very well, but I feel certain that it will not work in all cases. It would be much wiser to pass this Amendment, but I am not going to dispute further with the noble Lord to-night, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that our first national park has been the New Forest, and in the New Forest, the foresters have for years been special constables. I hope the noble Lord will

621
bear in mind this very good precedent for what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is now asking.
LORD CHORLEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord. We will go into the position of the New Forest and examine whether it will help us in this matter.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have an Amendment down which I do not propose to move, because it deals with very much the same point, and we are to have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 26, leave out ("subsection (1) or subsection (2) of").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92:
Restriction of traffic on certain roads
92.—(l) Where it appears to the council of a county or county borough, as respects a road in their area, being a road in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a road forming part of a long-distance route, that it is expedient that the use of the road by traffic of any particular description should be restricted on the grounds—

(a) in the case of a road in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty, that the use of the road by traffic of that description would detract from the natural beauty of the Park or area or from the enjoyment thereof by the community as a whole, and

(b) in the case of a road forming part of a long-distance route, that the use of the road by such traffic would prejudice the use thereof by persons journeying on foot or on horseback,

the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
(5) Where, as respects a road in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty, it appears to the Commission desirable that an order under this section should be made in respect of the road, and the council of the county or county borough, as the case may be, have not made the order, the Commission may apply to the Minister of Transport for an order such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, and the said Minister, after considering the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section, may if he thinks fit make such an order.
10.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) after "description" to insert:
"(other than traffic for agricultural purposes)".
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to which transport users attach considerable importance. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the power to make an order restricting traffic on a road shall not apply to trunk roads or Class I roads. These roads are main arteries of traffic, and upon their perfect operation the life of the country depends in these days, when exports are so necessary. They are main roads, built and maintained for the passage of all sorts of vehicles but particularly commercial vehicles. Some parts of these roads run through areas which are already being planned as national parks. Other parts of the roads are to be included as part of long-distance routes defined under Clause 51. Yet other parts may be situated in areas of outstanding natural beauty under Clause 86. By the operation of Clause 92 traffic restriction orders could be made upon those sections of the roads. Transport users submit that trunk roads and Class I roads should be exempt, and that it would be better if those roads were not included in the areas and the routes designated under the Bill. If they are to be included, however, the motor traffic upon them should be allowed to pass as freely as it does to-day.
This matter was dealt with in another place during the passage of the Bill there, and the honourable Member for Royton was informed by the Minister of Town and Country Planning that he need have no fear that the powers to close these roads would be arbitrarily used. If this power is not to be used—and I cannot conceive of its being used upon any one of these roads—why have the power in the Bill or make the roads subject to the operation of the Bill in any shape or form? Noble Lords may not realise the full implications of all this. As I have already stated to the Committee, there are 843 miles of trunk roads and Class I roads which lie within the areas designated as national park areas. For instance, in Wales (this ought to appeal to Lord Macdonald) there are no less than 149 miles of trunk roads and 134 miles of Class I roads which could be affected, including 16 miles of the main Holyhead

623
road. Then in the Peak district 14 miles of the A.6. road could be affected. That road runs from Matlock to Buxton. There are 156 miles of Class I roads in that area, and in fact, if those roads were closed, Buxton would be almost isolated.
Then again, taking the south, there are three miles of the London to Brighton road which could be affected and most of the roads in the central Sussex area could also be affected. I could give many more instances, but I do not want to weary your Lordships with them all. What we suggest is that if the powers that the Minister has are not going to be used, or are not going to be used arbitrarily with regard to these roads, it would be far better that the roads should not come within the operation of the Bill. I cannot conceive of any case of the Minister closing any of these roads or of restricting the traffic upon them. As everybody knows, the roads of this country to-day are altogether inadequate for the traffic which is trying to use them. The density of traffic on our roads to-day is higher than in any other country in the world, and I therefore submit that the operation of this Bill should not be allowed to affect the trunk roads and the Class I roads in any way whatever. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 9, after the first ("road") insert ("other than a trunk road or a Class I road").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to support this Amendment. It is astonishing that these roads should be included. If by any chance it is considered desirable to include a portion of a trunk road in a national park, surely a new road would have to be built to take its place. It is the old story of an undertaking by the Minister. But why not put it in the Bill?
LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR: As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, this Amendment seeks to provide that the power given in Clause 92 to restrict traffic on roads in the interests of amenity should not apply to a trunk road or a Class I road. I would say, in the first place, that it is most unlikely that this power will ever be applied to this type of road. Nevertheless, it is felt necessary to keep the power in reserve to meet any special circumstances that
624
may arise. The real safeguard is that any order made under this clause has to be submitted to the Minister of Transport for confirmation. It is therefore very unlikely that the traffic consideration will not be given due weight. In fact, the restriction need not be in respect of all traffic on a road; it might be directed only against certain heavy types of traffic. The Hobhouse Report mentions charabancs as a possible subject for restriction. I would add that subsection (2) of the clause sets out the considerations to which the authority must have regard before making an order, and these ensure that the authority will not arbitrarily put forward any proposal for closing roads. The reasonable requirements of the public have to be considered. We do not feel there is any need for this Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will not press it.
EARL HOWE: I am disappointed with the answer of the noble Lord. I would like to meet him in this, but nothing he has said convinces me in the least. He has singled out heavy traffic. The trunk roads and Class I roads are the very roads used by heavy traffic. If you are going to interfere with the operation of heavy traffic, you will do a great deal to raise the cost of road transport, which will be reflected in the charges for exports and everything else that uses road transport. It is the heavy traffic with which I am chiefly concerned. I am not prepared to accept the point of the noble Lord that this power is not likely to be used. I agree that it is not likely to be used, and that is why I cannot understand why it should be in the. Bill. I cannot understand why the noble Lord will not exempt trunk roads and Class I roads. I am quite sure that the Minister of Transport, or any Minister, would not dare to close these roads. Therefore, why have this power in the Bill? What sort of situation can be envisaged which might make it necessary? I beg the noble Lord to consider this matter further. I am ready to meet him and discuss it, but I am afraid that I must stick to my point.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: I am sorry, but I have nothing to add. I agree with the noble Earl that the fact that the Minister of Transport would never confirm such an order is the real safeguard. The noble Earl agrees to that.
EARL HOWE: If the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Town and Country Planning agree, why not accept the Amendment?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: There may be special circumstances which may make it necessary to use the power.
EARL HOWE: But the noble Lord has just said it will not be used.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No, I did not. I said that it would be only in very special circumstances that the Minister of Transport would confirm such an order and that therefore there is no need for this Amendment. All the considerations that the noble Earl has put forward will be in the mind of the Minister of Transport.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Lord say what sort of heavy traffic he proposes should be dealt with here? He has mentioned charabancs. These roads are not little side roads that lead up to pleasant dales in Yorkshire, Derbyshire or Wales. These are main through roads. The noble Lord cannot possibly contemplate bringing roads of that sort into the ambit of this Bill. I beg the Minister to think again. I do not want to divide the Committee on this, but I am afraid I shall have to unless I have a better answer.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I do not see any hope of giving a better answer to the noble Earl. He asked me to define the type of heavy traffic but he knows that that is not for me to answer. In an effort to meet him—rather reluctantly—I would consider the possibility of meeting him with regard to trunk roads. I can see his argument there with a little more force. If he will withdraw the Amendment we can talk it over, but I cannot accept the Amendment as it is on the Marshalled List. There is so much to be talked over that I do not know whether we shall reach the Report stage this year or next year.
EARL HOWE: I want to be quite clear about all this—it means that the noble Lord will agree to remove trunk roads from the ambit of the Bill.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I did not suggest that we had made an agreement over the floor
626
of this House. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, we will discuss the matter, and I have indicated upon what lines that discussion will take place.
EARL HOWE: Reserving all rights until the Report stage, I am ready to withdraw the Amendment now. I shall reintroduce it, and unless we can reach some agreement I will take it to a Division on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR: My noble friend Lord Cranworth has had to leave, and he has asked me to move this Amendment for him. I think it speaks for itself, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that if any steps were taken to order agricultural traffic off these roads or lanes it would be very serious. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 12, at end insert ("(other than traffic for agricultural purposes)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD O'HAGAN: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will consider this. It is a good deal more important than would appear on the surface to those not concerned in the matter of food production.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The order is subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Transport. He will naturally have regard to essential requirements—for example fire engines, milk lorries, trade vans and others. I am certain that the Minister of Transport will do so if convincing representations are made to him to that effect, whether those exemptions form part of the local authorities' proposals or not. For that reason, I do not think it is necessary to press this Amendment. I think the fears of the noble Earl are ill-founded.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment applies to roads forming part of a long-distance route the default powers of the Minister of Transport to make an order restricting traffic where the Commission represent to him that it is desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 2, after ("beauty") insert ("or a road forming part of a long-distance route").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL HOWE: As I am advised, the effect of this Amendment is to enable the National Parks Commission to apply to the Minister of Transport for an order restricting traffic from a road forming part of a long-distance route where the county council or the county borough council have decided not to make an order. I should have thought that the local council were the best authority—being a highway authority—to consider under subsections (2) or (3) whether the traffic of vehicles on the road should be restricted. It appears now that the Government do not trust the local councils in this matter. I think this is a tendency to substitute Departmental control from Whitehall for administration by local government authorities. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he really desires to press this. I would much prefer, and all transport users would prefer, that this matter should be handled by local authorities rather than from Whitehall.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under s. 92]:
LORD MACDONALD or GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 35, after ("under") insert ("subsection (3) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 94 to 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Power of Minister to defray expenditure on long-distance routes]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The substitution of these words enables the grant provisions of this clause to apply, as they necessarily should, to all acquisitions of land, whether by agreement or compulsorily for the purposes of the exercise of the Clause 54 powers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 15, leave out ("under") and insert ("for the purposes of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [Contributions by local authorities]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Where, under subsection (1) of section forty-one of this Act, the Minister directs that any power of one local authority shall be exercisable by another, then if the direction so provides the first-mentioned authority shall be under a duty to exercise their powers under subsection (1) of this section to such extent as may be specified in the direction."
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that while the county district can, as may be agreed between them, reimburse or contribute voluntarily to the county's expenses under subsection (1), which enables any local authority to contribute towards the expenses under the Bill of any other authority, if it will not do so voluntarily the Minister, when directing the transfer of powers under Clause 41 (1) to create new paths, can direct the county district to make a contribution towards the expenses that will be incurred by the county council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 32, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Crown land]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (3) after "may" to insert
"at the instance either of such authority or of the Commission."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to allow the Commission to be consulted in the case of Crown land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 23, after ("may") insert ("at the instance either of such authority or of the Commission").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I am advised that there is no need to give a power to the

629
Commission as suggested in this Amendment. The Commission are not given a specific duty to make similar representations to other Ministers, but there is nothing to prevent them from suggesting to a Department the making of an agreement if they wish to, although it would be more natural to proceed through the local planning authority. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST oF HACKNEY: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
11 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved after subsection (6) to insert:
"() Section eighty-eight of this Act shall apply to Crown land if the appropriate authority consents to its application thereto, but subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) an interest in Crown land may be acquired for the purposes of the said section eighty-eight only with the consent of the appropriate authority;

(b) if any land affected by arrangements under subsection (3) of that section or an agreement under subsection (6) thereof becomes Crown land, the arrangements or agreement shall cease to apply to the land unless the appropriate authority consent to the continued application thereto of the arrangements or agreement."

The noble Lord said: This new sub-section is to provide that Clause 88 of the Bill [Planting of trees and restoration of derelict land] shall apply to Crown land if the appropriate authority agrees, subject to certain conditions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 7, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
CLAUSE 101 [Power to authorise other local authorities to act in place of local planning authority]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment and the next ten Amendments all relate to the Amendment to Clause 101, page 81, line 28. They are all contingent upon that Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments movedߞ
Page 81, line 1, leave out from ("Where") to ("that") in line 3 and insert ("it is represented to a local planning authority by any other local authority")
Page 81, line 8, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 10, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that before agreeing as aforesaid to the exercise by the sail other local authority of any of the said powers in relation to a National Park, or to land in a National Park, the local planning authority shall consult with the Commission.")
Page 81, line 12, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 13, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 17, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 21, leave out ("council") and insert ("other local authority").
Page 81, line 24, leave out ("council") and insert ("local authority").
Page 81, line 28, leave out ("council") and insert ("local authority").
Page 81, line 36, at end insert—
("Provided that this subsection shall not authorise a local planning authority to delegate any of their functions under this Act, being functions relating to a National Park or to land in a National Park, except after consultation with the Commission.
() In this section the expression 'local authority' means a local planning authority, the council of a county or county borough, not being a local planning authority, or the council of a county district.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I understand that it would be convenient if we did not proceed any further this evening, and I agree that we should not. We have had a very long day.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION (DISSOLUTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Fifth Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.

WRITTEN ANSWER IMPORTATION OF COCONUTS
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDasked His Majesty's Government whether permits for the importation of coconuts in the shell are to be issued to Jamaica and the other British West Indian Islands on the same conditions as for British West Africa; and if not, why there is to be discrimination in favour of one part of the Colonial Empire.
LORD LUCAS: Coconuts in shell were included in the list of items for which import relaxations, in the form of open general licences operative as from October 5, were announced by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place on September 29 last. The territories to which these open general licences apply include all pants of the Colonial Empire.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.