Sitting of 7 July 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GOVERNESSES BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.
  KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Widows (Unemployment Benefit)
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of the hardship that is being caused by the fact that widows' pensions are taken into account in computing unemployment benefit; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with this.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): Under the rules made in 1948 a widow who is unemployed will receive at least as much as other unemployed people from the Insurance Fund. I see no reason for thinking that this gives rise to hardship or for altering the rules.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this obviously causes real hardship, particularly in cases where widows have brought up a family and have to go out to work in much more difficult conditions? Would he reconsider this matter and rather take the view that though this was done in 1948 we were big enough to reconsider things when their working caused people hardship?
    874
    Would he treat the whole matter on these lines?
    Mr. Peake: This has been the adopted practice for many years. Pensionable widows are, of course, given the option whether or not to continue their contributions to the Insurance Fund.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of National Insurance upon what basis and under what statute a widow's pension, payable in respect of the loss of her husband during the 1914–18 war, becomes merged in a right to a contributory widow's or retirement pension under the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. Peake: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind cases where a pension is payable to a widow under the National Insurance Acts at a reduced rate because she has a war widow's pension. This is done by virtue of Regulations under Sections 30 and 65 of the main Act.
    Mr. Hale: I am not quite sure what that answer means—I say that quite seriously. Is the Minister aware that what I have in mind is precisely what the Question on the Order Paper says—the case of a widow drawing pension in respect of the loss of her husband in the 1914–18 war—a war widow's pension—who has had her unemployment pay reduced because she is drawing that pension? Is it not abundantly clear that nothing could be more inequitable than to say, "You have qualified for a pension awarded in respect of the 1914–18 war but because of an Act passed in 1946 you are to have your benefits reduced because of something that happened 30 years ago"?
    Mr. Peake: This Question deals with the super-imposition of a widow's or retirement pension under the Insurance Acts over and above a widow's pension accruing in respect of someone who was killed in the 1914–18 war. The position is complicated. Up to 1939 no duplication was allowed. Since 1939 pensions at reduced rates became payable under the National Insurance Acts in addition to the Service penson, and after 1953 any widow attaining pensionable age will be entitled to duplication of pension in full.
    Mr. Hale: Cannot we get together, thrash this out and put it right?

    Married Women (Unemployment Benefit)
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of National Insurance what is the amount of the weekly entitlement of unemployment benefit under his regulations for a wholly unemployed married woman living apart from her husband and not maintained by him; and the amount of the entitlement of a married woman living apart from her husband and in receipt of a nominal payment of 2s. 6d. per week under a maintenance order.
    Mr. Peake: Whether a married woman living apart from her husband is entitled to unemployment benefit at the rate of 20s. a week or the higher rate of 26s. does not depend on whether she is actually being maintained by him, but on whether she is able to obtain any financial assistance from him. This rule is laid down in the Act and I have no power to alter it by regulations. The present rates will be increased to 26s. and 32s. 6d. respectively on 24th July.
    Mr. Hale: What about the second part of the Question?
    Mr. Peake: The second part of the Question raises a hypothetical case which would fall for decision by the independent statutory authorities and not by me as Minister.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am raising a specific case in which a woman, because she receives a nominal payment of 2s. 6d. per week from her husband under a maintenance order, has 6s. deducted from her unemployment pay? Will the Minister have a look at that?
    Mr. Peake: Cases of separated wives are one of the most difficult questions under the Insurance Act. We had to pass Insurance Acts for the group, for categories, and not for individual cases. We take the view that in a case of the sort which the hon. Member quotes the wife's primary recourse should be against her husband for an increased payment under the maintenance order when she falls unemployed.

    Coloured Students, Prince Albert Road Office (Employment)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that the Prince Albert Road office of his
    876
    Department has refused to employ coloured students; and if he will take steps to remedy this matter.
    Mr. Peake: Coloured students have from time to time been employed on temporary work in this office, and although difficulties have occurred they will be employed again if temporary staff is needed in future.

    Hospital In-patients' Benefit (Report)
    Mr. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has yet received the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the amounts payable to hospital inpatients; and what action he is taking upon it.
    Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. I received the Committee's Report on 27th June and copies will be available at the Vote Office after Questions. Provisional regulations are being laid today to give the earliest effect to their recommendations. As a result the benefit of hospital inpatients will go up, when the recent Act takes effect, broadly in the same proportion as other people's benefit. Those who have been a year in hospital will receive an increase of 1s. 6d.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be very widely welcomed?

  ELECTRICITY

    Low Temperature Heat Utilisation
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what success has attended the experiment in the utilisation of low temperature heat at Battersea Power Station; and what plans are in hand for the further utilisation of such energy now being wasted in other generating stations.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This experiment has proved technically successful, but it will take some time to weigh up its economic merits. Discussions are taking place between the British Electricity Authority

    877
    and other bodies with the intention of promoting other schemes of a similar nature.

    Power Cuts
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proposals he is making to industrial, commercial and other users of electricity, with a view to the avoidance of power cuts during the coming winter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour will be making a statement tomorrow on the Government's proposals for load spreading arrangements next winter, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await that statement.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Branded Petrol
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he expects to allow branded petrol to be once again on sale to the public.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The oil companies have asked the Government to reconsider this matter. It involves questions not only of supply, but also of the general balance of payments, and I am not able to make any statement at present.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is the Minister aware that we are almost the only civilised country in the world which gives the consumer no opportunity of buying better petrol and thus getting a greater mileage per gallon?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am very anxious that the best qualities of petrol should once again be on sale in this country as soon as possible, but I would not take any step which would injure the country in its balance of payments in the present difficult situation.
    Mr. Beswick: Would not the Minister agree that, at the moment, we are to some extent getting the worst of both worlds? Would not he insist that we not only retain the branded pool petrol, but also that we revert to the pool system of distribution, with its attendant economies?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is another question.

    Back Pressure Generation
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of his support for the principles of back pressure generation in properly balanced domestic and/or industrial power-cum-heating schemes, in the interest of coal conservation, he will hold consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government with a view to promoting a pilot and experimental scheme, on a district basis in one of the new towns or in a suitable district scheduled for rebuilding, in one of the bombed towns.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. There is already one scheme of this kind, and I will certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the possibility of promoting other similar schemes.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has had a special committee investigating this complex and technical matter for months past, and that whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and myself have been pressing for the publication of the report of that committee we have not yet succeeded? Is it not in the public interest that these details should be made available to hon. Members of this House in order that they can adjudge the efficacy of these schemes?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not aware of an actual committee, but the fuel engineers of my Department have been making advice available to local authorities.
    Sir H. Williams: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that during the debate initiated, I think it was last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said he had a committee in being and that what we really want is the report of that committee? Will my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend and find out what conspiracy has taken place about which he knows nothing?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there has been any conspiracy, but I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

  COAL

    Small Mines, North Staffordshire (Markets)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action has now been taken to assist small mine owners in North Staffordshire to find markets for their coal so as to prevent overstocking and maintain production.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am informed that the National Coal Board have suggested a number of outlets for the coals produced by these small mines, and most of them are disposing of their output currently and reducing their stocks.
    I understand that the North Staffordshire Federation of Small Mines consider that there has been a great improvement in the position.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Minister for the action he took last week in this matter, may I ask if he is aware that these small mine owners cannot afford to carry large stocks of coal and have been badly hit by the Lancashire slump and the recession in the salt trade? So far as I am informed there are still many complaints of over-stocking, which is impeding the flow of production. Will he keep an eye on this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, that was one of the reasons for the action that was taken. I shall certainly keep an eye on the matter, but the remedial measures have only recently been put into operation.
    Mr. Edward Davies: Is anything being done to enable local firms or householders to take up this extra stock off the ration in addition to normal supplies?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, that has been in force for some time in the various localities.

    Industrial Allocations
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what distributed stock of coal, expressed in terms of weeks' supply on 31st October, he proposes to allocate to industry, other than engineering and other metal trades, for the coming winter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Five, Sir.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what distributed stock of coal, expressed in terms of weeks'
    880
    supply on 31st October, he proposes to allocate to the engineering and other metal trades for the coming winter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Six generally, but seven in the Midlands.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: As the stocks are now nearly up to their targets, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that when they actually reach the targets coal will be diverted to other uses, so that industrialists may be encouraged to practise economy in the use of coal?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is the policy of the Government to export as much coal as possible consistent with reaching a safe target for the beginning of the coal winter.
    Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend explain why this Midland cartel should have more supplies than anywhere else?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has the same curiosity as myself, and the answer I received is that for many years there has, in the Midlands particularly, been a risk of difficulty due to transport congestion in that area.

    Exports
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the threat to Britain's European coal markets inherent in the present rate of deliveries and the anticipated total exports for 1952; the growing foreign competition in European markets; and what early prospect exists of increasing the annual rate of 12,500,000 tons in 1952.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I propose to deal with this among other matters during the debate later today.

    Mining Labour Force
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statistical statement on coal mining recruitment during the six months to 30th June, 1952, and on the total labour force in the industry compared with 1950 and 1951.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am circulating a table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:

    RECRUITMENT AND WASTAGE OF COLLIERY MANPOWER IN THE FIRST 25 WEEKS OF 1951 AND 1952

    —

    1952

    1951

    Recruitment:

    Juveniles

    14,581

    10,640

    Adult new entrants

    13,123

    12,175

    Re-entrants

    15,933

    17,854

    Total

    43,637

    40,669

    Wastage:

    Juveniles

    1,732

    1,470

    Others

    21,894

    26,236

    Total

    23,626

    27,706

    Net gain

    20,011

    12,963

    Total number on colliery books at end of period

    718,100

    701,700

  KOREA

    Communist Forces' Equipment (Cost)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations organisation as to the estimated cost of the modern military equipment now being supplied to the Communist forces in North Korea.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): None, Sir.

    Prisoners of War (Repatriation)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what offers of mediation on the question of the repatriation of prisoners of war in Korea he has received; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No formal offer of mediation on the prisoners of war question has been received from any quarter by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of the armistice talks at Panmunjom.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest proposals for an exchange of prisoners made by the Communists at Panmunjom.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The talks at Panmunjom are at present being held in secret session. I should prefer not to add at present to the accounts already given the House in my statement on 1st July, and in the White Paper published the same day.
    Mr. Henderson: Have Her Majesty's Government conveyed their views on these latest proposals to the United States Government and other interested Governments?
    Mr. Lloyd: We are in touch with the United States Government and other interested Governments on the latest proposals for resolving the deadlock. We are also in touch on other proposals designed to achieve the same object.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will the Minister impress in the proper quarters the fact that this is not a mere talking point as far as the Communists are concerned, because very real considerations of prestige are involved for them? Does he not agree that their latest proposals represented a slight advance and that they should be followed up rather than dampened down?
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that any proposal must be carefully considered.

    Koje Island Camp (Inquiry Report)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Part II of Command Paper No. 8596 on Korea is based upon the report of the United Nations court of inquiry; and whether he will now publish this report in full.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Part II of Command Paper No. 8596 was based partly on the United Nations Commander's report and partly on information obtained during my recent visit to Korea. I do not think that the information available to the House would be substantially increased by the action proposed in the second part of the Question. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am willing to place a copy of the United Nations Commander's report, as published in the United States, in the Library.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it clear, then, that there has been a court of inquiry? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman refreshed his memory on the answers he gave last week and on 19th May, when he said there was a court of inquiry as well as a report made by the Red Cross? Last

    883
    week he was in some doubt whether the United Nations Commander's report was the report, and that there was not a court of inquiry. Could we have it clear that there was a court of inquiry, and, if there was, will he make that report available?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not recollect ever having stated that there was a court of inquiry, but I certainly have stated that inquiries have been made. However, I have the document in my hand, and I am willing to place it in the Library so that the hon. Gentleman will be able to investigate it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that on the occasion to which my hon. Friend has referred he did say that the White Paper, when published, would give us ample information about the report of the Red Cross? Is he aware that it does not give us much information about the Red Cross report and that it is very difficult to find anywhere in this country any copy of it? Does he not think that it would be useful if the Government made available to the House, as another White Paper, the report made by the Red Cross on their inquiry into the handling of the camp?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a very different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the Minister read his reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th May, when he said:
    "… let us see what is the result of this court of inquiry"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1952; Vol. 501, c. 11.]
    In relation to the events on Koje Island, he definitely said that there was a court of inquiry.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that it is hardly a sufficient answer to say, "That is quite a different question," when what I was asking about was his own undertaking that ample information about this Red Cross report would be given in the White Paper the Government published, and when he has not given it?

    Investigation Proposal
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will move for the appointment of a delegation of hon. Members
    884
    of this House to visit and report on affairs in Korea.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): No, Sir.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to make a full investigation of the conduct of the Korean war, and ensure that all the necessary documents, papers, etc., shall be produced and that the committee have power to call for all persons and papers, which shall include a full report on what happened at the Wake Island Conferences and during the visits of Her Majesty's Ministers to India, Korea and other countries.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing disquiet among our people about the carrying on of this war, particularly among those whose sons, husbands or other relatives are out there and many of whom have been there so long? As the Prime Minister cannot accept the proposal in the Question, will he say what other action he is taking?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when the Korean war started, it was explained that this was not a war, but an international police act; and, in view of the fact that millions of people are homeless and that great devastation has occurred in Korea, is it not time that we have a full investigation of how it is affecting the people whom we are supposed to liberate?

  EXPORTS TO SPAIN (CIVILIAN AND MILITARY MATERIAL)
  Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the ban on the export of certain military equipment and goods to Spain has been lifted.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The total ban on the export of material destined for the Spanish armed forces, which has existed in recent years, would, if continued, deprive British firms of important commercial advantages.
  Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided, where this is desirable on

  885
  economic grounds, to lift the ban on the export of "common use" material, that is to say, material which can be used for either civilian or military purposes, and of obsolescent war material, where such material is surplus to our own requirements and those of customers such as the Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. countries.
  Mr. Davies: How can the Minister possibly justify this change of policy on these grounds? We cannot possibly change our policy simply on economic grounds when it is immoral to do so. Does the Minister realise that the United Nations condemnatory resolution which was passed in 1947 still stands?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that it is necessary to keep this matter in proper perspective. We obtain important strategic materials from Spain.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this return to common sense in dealing with Spain will give great satisfaction to sensibly-minded persons? We certainly objected to jet engines being sent to Russia while Spain, which is certainly not a greater tyranny than Russia, has not been allowed hitherto to have anything.
  Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the Minister aware that his announcement will be received with dismay by thousands of democrats in this country, because there is no difference between a totalitarian regime in Spain and one in the Communist countries?
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that democratic countries like Burma and Israel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is anybody suggesting that Israel is not a democratic country?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Burma is not.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that democratic countries like Burma and Israel have been trying to get exactly the same equipment as this, which has been denied to them and which is now being given to Franco Spain?
  Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question. I doubt very much if what the hon. Member says is true.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Argentine Meat Shipments
    Mr. F. Wileyasked the Minister of Food what arrangements have been made for the further shipment of meat from the Argentine when the amount of meat provided for by the Protocol has been supplied.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): Shipments under the Protocol are now virtually complete. The arrangements for further shipments are one of the main subjects of the negotiations in Buenos Aires which were recently suspended for President Peron's inauguration.
    As I said in reply to the hon. Member's Questions on 30th April and 26th May, I shall make a statement at an appropriate time.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that reports state that the ships leaving the Argentine recently left only partially loaded, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his good offices to endeavour to get the negotiations commenced effectively as early as possible?
    Major Lloyd George

    Meat Prices (Consultations)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food why there were no consultations with representatives of the meat traders about the new schedules of retail meat prices.
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. My officers consulted precisely the same representative traders as they did when the meat prices were altered in July last year.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that this time the meat traders asked that they should be officially consulted at the earliest possible stage in the negotiations and that they now complain that this was not done; and, further, that they complain that the schedules were issued

    887
    to the Press before they were given to the federation?
    Major Lloyd George: I can add nothing further to my answer. They were consulted.
    Mr. Royle: Is the Minister aware that there have been many criticisms from trade leaders about the consequences of these rises in price? Would it not be a good idea if the traders were always consulted fully before rises took place?
    Major Lloyd George: There has been no departure from the practice of past years. I have just said that the same people were consulted, precisely as before.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this time the butchers are saying that the Minister is quite out of touch with what is happening in the butchers' shops, and that this is a new circumstance?

    Bananas
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether the statement on the future purchase of bananas was made after consultation with the representatives of colonial suppliers; and what is the position regarding the present Government contract.
    Major Lloyd George: My statement of 19th June was a preliminary to the consultations now starting. I am unable at this stage to make any further statement.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the banana growers are most apprehensive about their trade with this country and that it would have been far better if he had consulted them first and then made a statement?
    Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I have referred him he will see that I said that we must be satisfied, before we do anything at all, that the interests of the colonial growers are safeguarded. That is what I said and that is what I stick to.

    Plum Pulp (Preservation)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Food if he will consider making facilities available for the use of SO, for preserving plum pulp in barrels
    888
    and tanks and thus increasing the opportunities for the use of home-produced crops of this fruit.
    Major Lloyd George: Such facilities are already available and I do not think that I could usefully intervene.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that the facilities are equal to those available during the war, because if there is not enough sugar it is most important, especially for the plum crop, that SO2 should be used?
    Major Lloyd George: I gather that the position is that there is a plentiful supply of SO2 available for this purpose. Therefore, if it is necessary to do this, I do not think that there is anything to prevent it being done.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that one of the difficulties is the actual place in which to put the fruit, not so much the supplies of SO2? Would he look into that matter to see that the capacity for taking the fruit is adequate?
    Major Lloyd George: I will certainly look into that point.

  ROADS

    Accidents, Thickthorn Crossroads
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Transport how many accidents occurred during the last 20 years at the Thickthorn crossroads where the B.3081 crosses the A.354 road; how many of these involved motor cars or lorries, and motor cycles, respectively; and how many of these accidents have proved fatal.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I regret that the information is not immediately available, but I am having inquiries made.
    Mr. Crouch: When my hon. Friend has the information will he, in the light of it, make money available to the local authority so that it can try to do something to prevent further accidents at this crossroads? Nothing more than two "Halt" signs have ever been erected on the two side-roads.
    Mr. Braithwaite: The first thing to do is to obtain the information.

    Safety Measures, Alcohol (Resolution)
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the copy of the resolution on road safety passed by the National Conference of the Sons of Temperance which has been sent to him; and what steps he proposes to take to implement the suggestions contained therein.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Yes, Sir, and I have replied to the hon. Member's letter sending me the resolution. As opportunity occurs I will consider what propaganda can be directed against the misuse of alcohol as a factor in road accidents.

  SHIPPING

    Ports (Efficiency)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that German coastal shipping is avoiding the use of British ports because of heavy charges and of the long time taken in turn round; and if he will take further steps to remove this disability to our trade.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of any such development. As regards the second part of the question, the Ports Efficiency Committee is charged with the duty of investigating all aspects of port operation in the United Kingdom.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend try to make the country realise that unless there is a quicker turn round at the docks, unless dock charges are lowered, unless we all work a bit harder and the vicious spiral caused by the continued demand for increased wages is stopped, we shall be faced with starvation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that most of those considerations are fully borne in mind. Nearly all of them are now operating, including better weather conditions which also help.

    Beaches (Oil Pollution)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the continuing loss and inconvenience caused to seaside resorts by the pollution of beaches by oil; if he has now concluded his examination of this matter;
    890
    and what steps he is proposing to take by way of remedial action.
    Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend is well aware that the pollution of beaches by oil is causing grave concern, and he is most anxious to do everything possible to solve it.
    The inquiries which my right hon. Friend's Department have been making are practically complete and preliminary discussions with appropriate Government Departments and with the shipping industry have been started to consider what further practical measures can be taken. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, this is a most difficult problem, to which there is no simple solution, but I can assure him that consideration will be given to every means by which the nuisance can be abated.
    Sir T. Moore: May I ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible, by international agreement, to have separators installed in all merchant ships, which would solve this problem almost overnight, and, at the same time, save the lives of thousands of sea birds every year?
    Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Sir. This is the type of information which is at present being collated with a view to preparing a report for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  TRANSPORT

    Commission and Executives (Re-appointment)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will make a statement in regard to the appointment of a chairman, deputy chairman and two full-time members to the British Transport Commission, in view of the fact that the terms of appointment of the present incumbents expire on 31st August, 1952;
    (2) if he will make a statement in regard to the appointment of chairmen to the London Transport Executive, the Road Haulage Executive, the Road Passenger Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive and the Hotels Executive since the terms of appointment of the present incumbents expire on 30th September, 1952; and his intentions in regard to those full-time members whose term expire on the same date.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: After discussion with the Commission, I am offering to all those full-time members mentioned in the Questions, and also to the members of the Railway Executive, the continuance of their services for a further year, although they will not necessarily in every case retain their existing appointments.
    This offer does not apply to the members of the Road Passenger Executive, which will cease to exist after 30th September of this year. I have seen the members of this Executive, and explained the position to them.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister correct in making the assumption that the terms of the Bill will be carried into effect; and, secondly, will the members of the Road Passenger Executive receive any compensation for the termination of their offices at such short notice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is in no sense short notice to the members of the Road Passenger Executive, because my predecessor in the Labour Government told them that they were not to be continued in office. In reply to the first part of the Question, I have powers to add to or diminish the number of the Executive without any regard to the forthcoming Bill.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the elimination of bureaucratic control is the surest means of restoring efficiency in transport?

    Amending Bill
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport if he will now give the date on which the Transport Amendment Bill will be available to hon. Members.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am giving notice of presentation of the Transport Bill today, and will present it to the House tomorrow. Copies will then be available to hon. Members the following day, Wednesday, 9th July.

    Annual Report
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport when the Annual Report of the British Transport Commission for 1951, which was promised about three weeks after the issue of the financial and statistical statement, will be made available to hon. Members.
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the Report of the British Transport Commission for 1951.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Report will be laid on Friday next, and will be available to hon. Members about mid-day.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Minister arrange to take the debate after we have had a reasonable chance of examining the Report?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As we have always made it plain that there would be a reasonable delay between the publication of the amending Bill and the Second Reading, the same naturally applies to the publication of the Report.

    Vehicle Drivers (Traffic Laws)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been drawn to those parts of the Metropolitan Police Report on London accident figures for 1951 which are critical of incompetent and careless driving; and if he will now consider bringing proposals before the House for an overhaul of all the arrangements connected with the licensing of persons to drive road vehicles, with a view to keeping off the roads those whose records or personal characteristics show them to be a danger to other persons using the roads.
    Mr. J. T. Priceasked the Minister of Transport if he has seen the statement of the London Commissioner of Police to the effect that many drivers on the road cannot drive a car competently; and if he will seek powers to strengthen the traffic laws of the country to combat the toll of road accidents.
    Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: I am aware of the Commissioner's report. It criticises pedal cyclists and pedestrians as well as drivers. There are limits to what legislation can do to prevent accidents, and, in general, I do not think that the present law as regards the driving of motor vehicles is inadequate. The courts can inflict heavy penalties on persons who drive a motor vehicle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not a fact that this report is of very great importance, and that nothing which has so far

    893
    been done in regard to the whole problem of road safety is having any real effect? Is it not obvious that it is the drivers themselves who, very often, have to be protected against others who are incompetent and prone to accidents?
    Mr. Braithwaite: All these matters are considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister regard as an encouragement to road safety in London the recent decision by the London Sessions Appeals Committee, which cut from 15 years to six months a driving ban imposed upon a deaf-mute motor-cyclist for a traffic offence? Does he consider that that is the way to earn respect for the law?
    Mr. Braithwaite: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise a particular court?
    Mr. Speaker: No, it is not in order.

    Glenfield Tunnel Accident, Leicester
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a young child was seriously injured on 29th June, 1952, when she fell some 20 feet on to the railway line from the parapet of the Glenfield Tunnel at Leicester; and if he will take immediate steps to protect children from such danger in future.
    Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend has received a report on this accident. The Railway Executive inform me that the line which at this point carries very little traffic, is protected by post and rail fencing. It was in good condition on the day before the accident, but it was found on the day after that some of the rails had been removed.
    Trespass by children who play on the cutting face has been difficult to prevent, in spite of close attention by the police. The damaged fencing has been repaired, and my right hon. Friend has asked the Railway Executive to consider the erection of a special barrier to stop children getting on to the tunnel parapet.
    Mr. Janner: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him to give further consideration to this matter, particularly as there are thousands of children in that area now who were
    894
    not there some years ago, and that there has been considerable pressure brought to bear by the tenants' association to have proper railings erected? Is he also aware that this child, who was very seriously injured, has been unconscious for about six or seven days, and that the matter is causing very grave concern in the district?
    Mr. Braithwaite: The obligation rests upon the railway. Experience has shown that trespass of this kind by active children is very difficult indeed to prevent, and that the real remedy lies in better parental control and the education of the children in the danger of trespassing on the tracks.
    Mr. Janner: This is a very serious matter. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to go into it himself, and not pass it on to others? It is a matter which can be put right, and which ought to be put right.
    Mr. Braithwaite: The original answer indicates that we are giving serious consideration to it, and my right hon. Friend has read all the papers connected therewith.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Electric Lamps (Monopolies Commission Report)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Supply if he will give an assurance that the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association have now implemented the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission Report, in accordance with the agreement made between him and the association.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am assured that the Electric Lamp Manufacturers' Association have made the necessary changes in their rules and methods.
    Mr. Lewis: May I take it that all the changes which they have made are in accordance with the promise they made to the Minister arising from the Question which I put down a month ago?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does this mean that the public are now to get cheaper and better lamps, because that is the prime test of whether the whole thing has been worth while or not?
    Mr. Sandys: That is quite a different question.

    Headquarters Staff (Discharges)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Minister of Supply how many of the headquarters staff of his Department have been discharged this year; and what steps are being taken to ensure that other and suitable employment is found for them.
    Mr. Sandys: Throughout the country about 650 temporary headquarters staff of the Ministry of Supply have been discharged this year. In the case of those discharged on grounds of redundancy, information about their qualifications is given to the Ministry of Labour so that they can help them find other employment.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that some of the temporary people who are being discharged are being asked to train two others to take their place? I have a case of that kind in my constituency, of which I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with details, where a woman who has given a number of years' service in his Department has now been given notice of dismissal as being redundant and has been asked, in the meantime, to train two others to do the job which she is doing.
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is really suggesting that we are discharging one person and then engaging two others to take her place. I know nothing about the lady to whom he refers, but, quite clearly, the purpose of this operation is to reduce the total number of staff, and we are making some progress towards that objective.
    Mr. Gibson: If I send the Minister a letter in connection with the case in question, will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Sandys: Gladly.

    Jet Plane Crash, Salisbury
    Mr. J. Morrisonasked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the jet plane crash on Bemerton Heath Housing Estate, Salisbury; and if he will do all that is possible to assist the city authorities to help to re-accommodate the injured and homeless.
    Mr. Sandys: The aircraft involved in this crash was a piston-engined machine engaged on a flight from the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down for the purpose
    896
    of photographing a trial of Army parachute equipment from another aircraft. A court of inquiry is investigating the cause of the accident.
    I regret that the two occupants of the aircraft, a Royal Air Force pilot and a civilian photographer, were both killed. In addition, an officer of the Wiltshire Fire Brigade, who were called to the scene of the accident, was seriously injured by a wall which fell on him and he is still detained in hospital. Nine other people suffered cuts and bruises and were taken to hospital, but were able to leave later in the day. One house was destroyed and 10 damaged, five of them probably beyond repair. In consequence, 34 people are temporarily homeless. Fourteen of them are being looked after in our Establishment at Boscombe Down. Compensation will, of course, be paid for the damage caused.
    I am sure that the House will join with me and the Secretary of State for Air in expressing its sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with those who have been injured or rendered homeless by this accident.
    Mr. Morrison: While I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to associate themselves with my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy for the bereaved and for the injured and homeless, may I ask if he is aware that those who lent a hand at the scene of the tragedy should be congratulated on the rescue work which they performed? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there is growing disquiet in the built-up areas in and around Salisbury at the continued practice of low flying, and will he be good enough to contact his right hon. Friends at the appropriate Ministries with a view to looking into the question of low flying and dealing with it?
    Mr. Sandys: I will certainly look into it.

  CABINET MINISTERS (AIR TRAVEL FACILITIES)
  Air Commodore Harveyasked the Prime Minister what special facilities for air travel in the United Kingdom are now available to Members of the Cabinet.
  The Prime Minister: For journeys within the United Kingdom, members of

  897
  the Cabinet have at their disposal the regular services of British European Airways and its associates: where necessary, commercial aircraft can be chartered. Service aircraft or aircraft of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Flying Unit are available in appropriate cases.
  Air Commodore Harvey: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that the scheduled services do not always fit in, and that, in carrying out their very onerous duties, it would be a good thing to advertise the British lead in civil aviation and enable them to fly whenever possible?

  MR. ACHESON'S SPEECH TO MEMBERS (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange with the United States Government to publish as a White Paper or otherwise make available to Parliament the speech made to Members of both Houses by the United States Secretary of State, including, if possible, the questions asked and Mr. Acheson's answers.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Silverman: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to explain what reasons there are for withholding from the public in this country information which he told us last week had already been published in the United States of America? Is it because publication of the document would show, quite clearly, that there is a fundamental cleavage of policy between this country and the United States with regard to the Far East, which only the continuation of the Korean war serves to disguise?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that I need add anything to my very full answer.
  Mr. Silverman: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not asking the House to agree that a mere negative is a sufficient answer to it for being denied facilities given to another country of having in front of it information which, after all, was in the first place given in this country and to Members of both Houses. Ought not he to reconsider what is becoming with him an habitual contempt for the rights of this House in this matter?
  Mr. Bevan: Arising out of the reticence of the Prime Minister and expressing the wish that it might have been retrospective, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that all my hon. Friend is asking for is the simple, physical facility which is quite frequently asked of Ministers when important documents are published on the other side of the Atlantic, that we should have them available here? Is that unreasonable?
  The Prime Minister: The passage was released to the Press by the State Department on 1st July and that is what I read to the House in the debate on that date. It was closely relevant to the Motion before the House, and these were the circumstances in which Mr. Acheson agreed to its being published. The speech as a whole was made off the record. I think the practice of inviting distinguished foreign visitors to speak on this basis to Members of both Houses is generally convenient and advantageous, and I should be sorry to take any action which might prejudice the frank and confidential character of such addresses in the future. No complete text of Mr. Acheson's speech was available as far as I am aware, and no record was taken of the questions asked and the answers given.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigations and find out whether the whole statement has not been published in the United States? We are, of course, not anxious to break the pledges given at meetings of this sort, but we understand that the whole statement has been published in the United States, and we should like to see it here. That is the only point in the Question, apart from the questions and answers to questions.
  Mr. Silverman: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us in his speech last week that the whole speech had been published in the United States of America, and was it not that which gave rise to a certain unfortunate altercation that took place on that occasion? Is he not further aware that on the occasion when the speech was made every single word of the speech and of every question and answer was taken down by a stenographer who was there for the purpose?
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gibson.
  Mr. Silverman: Before we proceed to the next Question, Mr. Speaker, may I

  899
  give notice that in view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the answer to my Question I shall raise the matter again at an early opportunity?

  WASTE PAPER COLLECTIONS, SCOTLAND
  Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he is aware that a number of county councils in Scotland, having organised the collection of waste paper on efficient lines, still find themselves unable to dispose of it; and if he will make arrangements to store this paper centrally until it can be absorbed by the mills.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): Yes, Sir. I am aware of these difficulties. The trade has gone carefully into this question of storage in consultation with the Ministry of Materials and representatives of local authorities, but I regret to say that the cost, including transport, handling in and out of store, and insurance against fire has been found to be prohibitive.
  Major Anstruther-Gray: Is it not very disappointing that all the energy behind this salvage drive should be wasted? Could not my hon. Friend look into the possibility of exporting this waste paper so that some advantage may be derived from it?
  Mr. Mackeson: The trouble is that the paper mils, who have already made the fullest use of storage space available to them, now have a record quantity of over 128,000 tons in store, whereas the consumption of cardboard for the manufacture of which waste paper is chiefly used has fallen. Arrangements are being made so that the reduced purchases will be spread with a view to relieving the county councils of Scotland concerned from the embarrassment they are now suffering.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the period of extreme stringency—between 1946 and 1950—this country lost a very valuable export trade in this commodity? Does not he agree that it is an export trade which we ought now to be trying to get back, and will he
  900
  examine that particular aspect of this problem?
  Mr. Mackeson: Yes, I will certainly look at it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that answer mean that the local authorities are not to be encouraged as much in future to organise waste paper collections as they were in the past? Does it mean that they are to be deterred from building up stocks of waste paper?
  Mr. Mackeson: No, Sir. We do not wish to discourage local authorities, but there has been an exceptionally satisfactory drive. Arrangements will be made by the mills to get in touch with the local authorities and indicate how much can be accepted. At the moment there is more in store than can be used, and since 1951 more has been collected than the machines can handle.

FILM QUOTA (PROSECUTIONS)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I should like to make a short personal statement.
Last Thursday I was answering a number of Questions upon the subject of prosecutions under the Cinematograph Films Acts. The reply which I made to a supplementary question on this subject was misleading and I wish to correct it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked me whether I had had the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown on the question whether a certain prosecution should be understaken. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind the case of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square. In reply I said:
"I have had the advice of the Law Officers about all these prosecutions, and I have acted on their advice in these matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 612.]
It is the fact that I had consulted the Law Officers generally in regard to prosecutions under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, and it was this consultation which I had in mind in my answer. But I did not consult the Law Officers, nor, indeed, would it be the normal practice to do so, on the question whether a

901
prosecution should be brought in the particular case in question. Indeed, acting on the advice tendered by my Department, I had reached and announced my decision on this case before any consultation with the Law Officers took place.
It is, I know, the intention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) to raise the whole question of prosecutions under the Cinematograph Films Act on the Adjournment. I welcome this course.
Meanwhile, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House for unwittingly giving a misleading answer and trust that this statement will clear up any misunderstanding on the point.
Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is a personal statement, as opposed to a Ministerial Statement, and it is contrary to the practice of the House, when an hon. or right hon. Member makes a personal statement, to have any discussion or further questions.
Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to start further discussion, Sir, but only to thank the right hon. Gentleman for sending letters to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) to let us know that he would make this statement and for taking the earliest opportunity to put the matter right.

SUPPLY
[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

SUPPLY

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £25, be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following Services connected with Fuel and Power for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

  Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimate, 1952–53

  £

  Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power

  10

  Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Class IX, Vote 9, Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)

  10

  Total

  £25

FUEL AND POWER
3.24 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: I believe that this is the first time we have had a debate on fuel and power whilst the present Minister has held his office. I have no doubt that he will be more than eager to give an account of himself to the extent to which, of course, his "overlord" permits him. I can remember very vividly many fuel and power debates over the past few years. They were usually acrimonious because the nationalisation of the fuel and power industries was a matter of bitter party controversy. Many of us who took part in those debates will miss Lord Bracken today. He was rarely absent from our debates and could be relied upon always to stimulate the proceedings. However, many of his gloomy prognostications, I am glad to say, have not been borne out by experience.
When considering the line I should take in opening this debate, I must confess that I was very tempted to turn up the many speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Minister himself, when they were in opposition; but I resisted the temptation because I have always held the view that these basic industries, vital to the national
904
prosperity of our country, cannot get on with their immense tasks if they are to be involved continually in a political conflict.
That does not mean that nothing will be said today which has a political content. It is inevitable that the political views of the Government, which have an impact upon the nationalised industries of coal, gas and electricity, are of great importance to us all, and not least to the industries themselves. Upon the success of the fuel and power industries depends very largely our economic survival. Criticisms there may be, but I am sure that neither the Government nor the industries will find that anything but helpful if our criticisms are well founded. Carping criticism should be avoided, constructive criticism should not be resented, and so I shall not only put a point of view but I shall be asking some questions with which I hope the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will deal when replying to the debate.
We can look back now upon five years for coal, four years for electricity and three years for gas under public ownership. Speaking as one who was closely associated with these industries in a Ministerial capacity for a few years, I believe that, on the whole, they have done a good job of work and that we must give credit to all those in the industries at all levels who have contributed to their success. The trade union movement has played a great part and we have seen trade unionists, the leaders and the rank and file, not just concerning themselves only with wages and conditions, but anxious that the industries should be successful, and by joint consultation and in other ways making a great contribution.
One of the most difficult tasks in any industry is to get the human relations within that industry right, and we have seen these great industries drastically change their form without serious industrial upsets. In this field of good personal relations the machinery which has been agreed jointly by the trade unions and the management is fairly complete, and there is very serious effort being made by both sides to make the machinery which has been created work both efficiently and effectively.
Joint consultation is, however, something more than machinery; it is an

905
attitude of mind. It is not easy to change attitudes of mind when they have existed over the years and when there is sometimes resentment on both sides; but as time goes on and there are continuous efforts to make joint consultation work, the steady and noticeable improvements will continue, with great benefit to the industry concerned.
One of the most pleasing features has been the way in which educational and training facilities have been developed. The worker has never expected promotion without being qualified. His grievance has been that he did not always see equality of opportunity before him. Now, through the facilities of the educational and training schemes, if he has the ability and takes advantage of the opportunities offered, he can qualify himself for promotion.
One of the brightest things in connection with this is to see the number of men from within the coal industry who have qualified themselves for university scholarships under the Coal Board's scheme. The number is now nearly 200, and last year the first 28 to graduate started their careers. That is a great thing to report. The gas and electricity industries have both put into operation excellent schemes for education and training. The practice of allowing time off with pay to attend classes, whilst not new in the sense that it had never been done before, is certainly new in the size of the projects with which it is connected. Finding the best brains and aptitudes and giving the fullest opportunity for all on the basis of capacity rather than on nepotism will bring rich rewards.
It will be some time yet before the flow of young people who are given these opportunities really makes itself felt, but meanwhile we must say how much we welcome the arrangements made, and we give the maximum encouragement to their extension and full use. There is no doubt that this has already had a great effect upon recruitment in the most difficult of all industries for recruitment—the mining industry.
It is clear that the youngster from the mining village is now looking to mining as a career with a future. How else can one interpret the very heartening recruitment figures? In 1949, 14,000 juveniles joined the industry; in 1951, 20,000, and
906
in the first 20 weeks of this year 13,300 juveniles entered coal mining, a figure which is 3,500 more than the high figure of 1951. The bulk of these will have come from mining families, showing that slowly but surely the trend for miners' sons not to enter the industry is becoming reversed. How can we measure that as a contribution to the nation's welfare? If public ownership had done nothing more than that for the mining industry, it would have justified itself.
But what of some of the outstanding achievements of these industries in carrying out the charter under which they were set up? We were often accused when in government of nationalising these industries merely because of a doctrinaire policy. But, of course, that was not the case. It is true that we believe in public ownership. In our view, it has much to commend it as a principle; but we were just as much concerned with making these industries efficient and economic in the public service. What has been attained? Obviously I can touch upon only a few things, but even so they reveal immense progress.
If we take electricity, what do we find? Thermal efficiency overall rose in the first three years of nationalisation from 20.86 per cent. in 1947–48 to 21.79 per cent. in the calendar year 1951. What did that mean? It meant a saving of about two million tons of coal, representing an economy of about £5 million. Since vesting day, 20 new power stations have begun operations, and 3,347,000 kilowatts of new generating plant was installed up to the end of 1951. The first section of the new super-grid to operate at 275,000 volts has been constructed, and when completed this new super-grid will save millions of pounds on new plant and secure the advantages of cheap generation in a number of large stations to be built on the East Midlands coalfields.
Savings of more than £4½ million have been secured in the first three years of nationalised operation in capital costs of providing points of supply to area boards, compared with the cost that would have been incurred in pre-vesting conditions. The policy of the standardisation of plant and equipment has secured advantages in reducing work in design departments, drawing offices and manufacturers' workshops, and I understand that today approximately 80 per cent. of the B.E.A.

907
plant programme comprises plant of standard sizes or for standard conditions of operation.
A great contribution has been made to agricultural production and amenity by reason of having electrified over 28,000 farms, the total now being in excess of 120,000, and of course this must be continued. We shall not get the increased productivity from the land or the factories unless we put more horsepower at the elbow of the worker. It was pointed out in several of the reports of the teams sent to the U.S.A. by the Anglo-American Council on Productivity that the horsepower available to each worker in the United States of America is three times that available to the British worker. We have got to catch up, and of course it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the electricity industry is not lacking for the things it requires to carry on the present activities and its future programme.
What is the Government's intention with regard to capital expenditure? It is essential for proper planning, and in order that firm orders for plant and machinery and contracts for structural work may be placed, that the industry should know what capital expenditure will be permitted for several years ahead. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the Government's ideas are on this particularly important matter. What is being done to ensure adequate supplies of the special steel and the steel for reinforced concrete construction, the shortage of which, as the Minister must know, is in a number of cases holding up the commissioning of new plant?
The same kind of considerations apply to the gas industry. Can the Minister assure us that the shortage of capital investment is not preventing the gas industry from getting on with its expansionist programme? One of the most valuable advantages arising from nationalisation of the gas industry was the ability to construct gas grids, with the consequent savings to be effected thereby. But this is being retarded because of the shortage of pipes.
Indeed, it was only recently that the chairman of the East Midlands Gas Board, in a report to the area consultative council, said that deliveries of pipes for gas supplies are now so behind that
908
many new houses will be finished and occupied before the gas can be laid on. He estimated that his board's requirement for steel this year was 21,680 tons, but it appeared that its allocation would be only 6,600 tons—and this is only one area board amongst many. This is very serious.
How will this industry be placed for supplies of pipes and steel for the development of their coal carbonising activities? Industry urgently needs greater gas supplies, particularly those industries which are engaged in the re-armament programme. In Birmingham and the Black Country 78 requests for industrial supplies, each exceeding 4 million cubic feet a year and aggregating 4,517 million cubic feet, had to be refused. A similar story can be told of many other industrial areas. This is a very vital and grave matter. I know the difficulties, but industry must get the supplies it needs or we shall fail to meet our production obligations.
What is the Minister doing about this? After all, these matters are outside the control of the industry and are a governmental responsibility. It is, indeed, fortunate that the industry was nationalised when it was, because, despite the difficulties, the gas industry has made some remarkable economies and has been able to improve its efficiency. Scotland is a case in point, where integration has enabled the Scottish Board to link up and merge a number of undertakings. Seven works have already been closed and 15 more are to be closed when the present schemes which have been approved are completed.
The economies by this linking are obvious. In the eastern area a capital cost of some £98,000 has been avoided and two villages which have not previously had a supply of gas lie on the route of the new link and will benefit thereby. In Sheffield, for three years it has been necessary to restrict the supply of gas to industrial consumers. A connection of only some 500 yards of main has connected Rotherham with Sheffield, with the result that on the maximum day more than 6 million cubic feet were used above the maximum output before vesting day. In South Wales, two major schemes of the eastern and western gas grids are well under way, and, in co-operation with the Coal Board, the gas from the new

909
Nantgarw gas ovens will flow into the eastern grid. Already it has been possible to cease production at four works and to curtail it at others. These are a few examples out of many proving the advantages of an integrated industry.
Nor can the gas industry be accused of lack of enterprise. It has always been said that publicly-owned undertakings such as these would not have real enterprise and that it needs private ownership to have real enterprise, but the fact is that the Welsh Gas Board must get a great deal of credit for the first large-scale experiment in the use of butane, a product in this case from the Llandarcy refinery of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The gas-making plant at Whitland, Carmar thenshire, was closed down and consumers were supplied through the mains with butane air mixture producing the new form of gas. The results of this pioneer experiment have been made available to all other area boards by the Gas Council, so that the whole industry will be advantaged.
Whitland is only a small undertaking supplying about 240 consumers, but it normally consumes about 538 tons a year. That coal will now be saved, and that in itself is important. But what is more important is the potential saving in coal that can accrue as this kind of scheme is developed and with the utilisation of the ever-increasing quantities of butane which the growing refinery programme will produce. Coal savings are today terribly important. Indeed, I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on the production of a very fine book, "Ten Steps to Power" in which he deals with this matter very carefully indeed.
Whilst we avoided a shortage last winter, the Minister informed me, in answer to a supplementary question, that this was due largely to the mild weather. I think that an additional reason was the excellence of the plans which were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), his predecessor; but I do not exclude the fact that a mild winter makes a great deal of difference. So does large-scale unemployment in Lancashire, when mills, which are large users of coal, cease to take supplies. I have no doubt that the Government have a plan to restore full employment to Lancashire, but I do not
910
think that we can pursue that matter at the moment.
We cannot rely on having a mild winter every year. Stocks of coal for industry stand high, but I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will want to get a stock of 17½ million or 18 million tons by the end of the summer in order to begin the winter. Perhaps he will give us an indication as to the exact level he is planning to achieve by the end of the summer. At all events, it would not appear to be a matter of concern today, for industrial stocks are standing well.
I am not so happy about stocks for domestic consumers. The Minister might be good enough to let us have a figure for those stocks and also to tell us whether there will be any additional large coal for the house coal programme. I have no doubt that the recent increase which he made of some slack coal, was greatly appreciated by the trade, but he knows full well that the real requirement of the domestic market is large coal, of which there is a very great shortage. Will he be able to make an additional allowance of large coal for the next winter?
We should also be very glad if he would elucidate the speech which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary at the annual luncheon of the Society of Coal Merchants in April. Is it intended to free completely the distributive trade? Is it intended that newcomers may enter the distributive trade? There are many rumours in that trade. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to disturb the trade and that he has a very difficult time, but I think it would be useful to know exactly what is in his mind in regard to easing restrictions on coal distributors.
Stocks are highly important. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that stocks can and are only being built up at the cost of exports, and exports are vital. Iron ore from Sweden and timber from Finland are only two of the essential raw materials which we can buy with coal. Europe is crying out for coal. It seems incredible that some three-quarters of United States economic aid to Europe this year is to be spent upon buying American coal. If this could possibly have been avoided, it would have changed the whole economic position of Europe and ourselves. The problem of the

911
scarcity of shipping and the rising freight rates is not helped when one considers that 500 ships are engaged on this long haul from America to Europe.
From 1947 to 1951 Europe imported nearly 90 million tons of American coal. Our inability to export more coal is inextricably tied up with our inability to import more food and raw materials and thus improve, or indeed hold, our living standards. This plain fact cannot be too often emphasised both to producers and to users of coal. Indeed, in order to find more coal for export we must produce more and consume less. As to production, I shall say a word about that later. Consuming less or slowing down the percentage of increase of home consumption is an absolute necessity.
The National Coal Board "Plan for Coal" provides for an output of 240 million tons in 1961–65. The Federation of British Industries, in their evidence to the Ridley Committee, estimates the total requirement, including 30 million tons for exports and bunkers, at 293 million tons. Other authorities also seem to share the opinion that 240 million tons will be insufficient. What does the right hon. Gentleman think about that? Is it his view that the National Coal Board's plan is too modest? If it is, what does he propose to do about it? If the F.B.I. figure is anywhere near correct, our exports of coal will never be large enough to satisfy European requirements, even after allowing for increased production on the Continent. Indeed, they will dwindle below the present level.
The T.U.C. and the F.B.I. have shown their great concern about this problem and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South set up the Ridley Committee in August last to advise on the better use of fuel and power, because it is in this field that we can probably get more coal more quickly than by an increase in production. I understand that the Committee have not yet reported, and I should like to ask the Minister whether he can say just what progress is being made and whether he has any idea when the Committee will be reporting. As a result of previous work on this subject by a whole host of bodies, including the magnificent work done by the mobile testing units of the fuel efficiency service of the right hon. Gentleman's own Ministry,
912
there is a great deal of knowledge already available.
It is within my recollection that one of the reports from the mobile testing units was to the effect that if the recommendations they made were put into effect by industry, there would be a potential saving of some 20 per cent. I know that capital is required for these schemes, and we all welcome the loan scheme under which the Government will provide up to £1 million in total for industrial firms which install approved fuel-saving equipment or insulate their factories; but I believe that this is quite inadequate.
I believe it is inadequate because it is to be an experiment for only one year, and the loan is presumably at the normal rate of interest. A larger sum should have been made available and a real incentive given to the small industrialist by fixing a nominal interest of 1 per cent. It must be appreciated that 40 per cent. of industrial coal is used by plants consuming 50 tons or less a week. These are the users to which this scheme will be most attractive. Larger firms have already got under way with their new schemes and are financing them largely themselves. It is the small industrialist—the 50 tons a week man—whom we should go after, because by so doing we should probably make the greatest saving.
I have received a copy of the explanatory leaflet—for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman—which was issued at the end of May. While only a little over a month has elapsed since he distributed this leaflet, I should be glad to know what kind of a reception it has had, how many firms have indicated their intention to make use of the scheme and whether any sums have yet been advanced?
Another weak feature of the scheme—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to have a look at this question—is that it is a condition of a loan that the scheme shall be approved by the Ministry of Fuel and Power; but when the Minstry of Fuel and Power have approved the scheme, and when the finance corporation, acting for the Government, have agreed to make the loan, the industrialist is told: "All that has been done. You run away and get all the licences you may require," and he is subjected to a great deal of difficulty and paper work in order to get licences for schemes which the right hon. Gentleman

913
has approved and for which the Government have made a loan.
This is purely an administrative matter, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might look at it again. If he approves a scheme and the finance corporation agree to make the loan, I suggest that his Department should also grant the licences so that the industrialist can go right ahead with the job of converting his plant. It seems to me that that kind of thing would be much more likely to make the scheme more attractive than it is if the industrialists are given a good deal of difficulty after their schemes have been approved. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give very careful consideration to that point. After all, a prospective fuel saving of 20 per cent. is not to be looked at lightly. It represents several million tons.
What else can the right hon. Gentleman do to get some coal saved in industry? After these past years of gentle persuasion—and I have done my part—which I admit has been highly successful to a point, I think the time has now come for much more vigorous action. The fleet of mobile testing units might be expanded and all firms using over a certain tonnage visited. Make the loan easier, as I have suggested, and the firms which decline to implement the recommendation of the fuel efficiency unit in a reasonable time should have its coal supplies restricted.
This may sound a bit severe, but, after all, the housewives of this country have had a great restriction placed upon them, resulting in much physical discomfort and in some cases hardship. From 45 million tons, which the domestic consumers used before the war, they are now down to about 31 million tons a year. It is grossly unfair to go on restricting the domestic market in this way and at the same time permitting the industrialists to use coal wastefully. Coal is so vital to us now and in the years ahead that we must show people that we mean business in this matter.
There are a number of other big schemes about which I, like the right hon. Gentleman, have some knowledge, and I think the time has now arrived when he must begin to press forward with some of them. What about the Severn barrage scheme? That would save us 1 million tons of coal a year. I know
914
that it would be a vast project, with a great capital investment, but a million tons a year extra coal on the export market would go a long way towards financing that scheme. If there were time, one could go on enumerating many methods which have been tested and tried and which could be adopted in advance of the Ridley Report. I hope the Minister will not regard this as just another speech in the House of Commons to which he is bound to listen, but will seriously regard this matter as one of urgency. Let him put a little card on his desk, where he will see it every day, and on it have printed in large, bold capitals, "What have I done today to save more fuel?"; and never let the answer be, "Nothing."
Finally, let us look at the production side, of the industry. The figures for the first 20 weeks of this year reveal the initial effects of the sharp rise in recruitment, especially of juveniles. Extra face room required means that experienced manpower has to be used for development. Output per man-shift overall is nearly 2 per cent. below the same period of last year and the rate of increase at the face is lessened. We can expect, I presume, increased output towards the end of the year when the extra manpower comes more fully into play.
Looking back, however, the industry has done remarkably well when one considers the terrible decline in the industry until just after the war. Output for 1946 was down to 181 million tons as compared with 227 million tons in 1938; manpower was down from 782,000 to 697,000; output per man-year from 290 tons to 260 tons; and output per man-shift from 1.14 tons to 1.03 tons. That picture has changed considerably. If it had not, then Britain would have been finished as a great Power and her people would have been on a very low standard of living.
Manpower at the end of 1951 was 699,000, and still increasing; the output per man-year was 303 tons and the output per man-shift 1.21 tons. Indeed, the output per man-year was the highest for half-a-century and the output per man-shift the highest ever in the history of the industry. I remember that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in opposition they used to make great play about output per man-year. Well,

915
it turned out as we said it would when we nationalised the industry. Of the six Western European coal-producing countries, Great Britain has had the highest output per man-year during each of the years 1948 to 1951 and has also had the highest output per man-shift underground, except for the Netherlands. Here is something in which we can all take pride and on which we can pay our tribute to those who work in this, our greatest industry.
My final word is this. While no one, least of all those who have been charged with the running of these fuel and power industries, would claim that everything is perfect, let us give credit where it is due. No one could read the annual reports of these industries, year after year, as I have done, and fail to be impressed by the immensity of the tasks and the vigorous way in which they have been tackled. And no one could fail to be impressed, either, by the driving power of public service.
These industries need all the help Parliament can give to them. There is much to do and time is not on our side. They are now operating under the shadow of the election manifestos of the Conservative Party. Whatever controversy wages about steel and transport, let us at least free these fuel and power industries from the political arena. Changes there may be, but let those changes be based upon the practical experience of the boards, and the trade unions working with them, and let them have the public interest in view. Let any changes come from within the industries themselves, and let them be changes designed to make the industries more efficient and better able to serve the nation's needs.
I do not expect the Minister to stand up and denounce his party's election programme, but I do urge him to forget about it, to tell us today that these industries can forge ahead, and to free them from the uneasy feeling that they must remain the whipping posts of politicians.
3.57 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I could not possibly make any complaint about the speech of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) this afternoon. It was noticeable for an almost complete absence of party feeling, except for just that last passage, which I suppose even hon.
916
Members on this side of the House expected that he would feel he must make. Dealing with the coal industry, in particular, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the statement which I made last November was satisfactory, and that the National Coal Board, and indeed a good many of his hon. Friends, were kind enough to say that it had allayed feelings of anxiety in the coalfield.
I think the most useful thing that I could do would be to make a reference, before I come to the survey which I must make myself, to what the right hon. Gentleman said about fuel efficiency. I know that when he was at the Department he and his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), who was then the Minister, put a great deal of energy into the work for fuel efficiency, and I therefore listen with particular attention to what he says.
I can understand that while a good deal has been achieved, all those who work in this field are inclined to feel a certain sense of frustration that they cannot get ahead even faster; but I am sorry that that feeling of frustration should have led the right hon. Gentleman into suggesting that there should be a definite restriction on the supplies of coal to industry because, while I can well understand the motive—which I notice was approved by hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway—yet I think the right hon. Gentleman is choosing an easy but wrong way out of the difficulty. Although it might be in the interests of fuel efficiency, nevertheless it would lead to a great many restrictions and to frustration in the operations of industrial firms and would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to administer without having a bad effect upon industrial production.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: What would the right hon. Gentleman do with a firm which was asked to become more efficient in the use of coal and refused to do so?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that in a country like ours, while we must do our best to get people to do the right thing, we cannot in all circumstances compel them to do so. I believe that the right line is more in the direction of giving incentives.
That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about the loans scheme. I can tell him that we have

917
had requests from over 100 firms for the form, in spite, as he has said, of the relatively short time in which the scheme has been working, and we have already received back 10 of those forms with applications for loans amounting to just under £86,000. I think that is rather encouraging for such a very short space of time, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to his further proposals, that we have always put forward this scheme as an experiment, and, therefore, because it is an experiment, that means we shall have to watch the way it works and shall have to consider it as time goes on.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: And if there is a demand to increase it, and if a lower rate of interest would increase demand, consider that, too.
Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, while I take note of what he says—and, obviously, after an experiment everything must be considered—I could not be in a position to make any further statement about that now.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that, and I do not want to delay the right hon. Gentleman from coming to his statement, but I hope he will also consider that what I have just said is the mature view of the Federation of British Industries, who believe they could get a very big result if more money were available for loans at a really low rate of interest.
Mr. Lloyd: Yes, those are certainly important matters for consideration.
The difficulty, I think, that always faces a Minister of Fuel and Power in a debate like this is the immense range of the subject. After all, it is not a coal debate, nor a gas debate, nor an electricity or oil debate. It is a fuel and power debate, and it is extraordinarily difficult to cover that immense field, and more difficult particularly to cover it without doing what is really not acceptable to the Committee, that is to give an endless spate of statistics which, in the end, make it rather impossible to follow the subject properly. I would propose to try to make a survey—a very rapid survey. I shall try not to clog the Committee with statistics. I shall try to make a survey looking particularly all the time at the effect of the operations of these industries on our
918
crucial national problem, namely, the increase of productivity and the balance of payments.
For that reason I would propose today first of all to say a few words about the oil industry, because this is the one of the fuel and power industries which is expanding most quickly, and it is also the one which is making the greatest contribution to our balance of payments. That really is rather a sad thing from the point of view of the coal industry, but it has also a good side to it for the nation as a whole, in that we have this as a compensating factor.
But, before I come to it in detail, I should just like to put to the Committee one sobering general fact with regard to fuel and power. We are always hearing nowadays about the fact that the American workman has more horsepower behind him than the British workman. It is true. In the end, of course, it all comes back to fuel and energy. I was looking the other day at the figures over a period of time for the comparison between this country and the United States.
About 100 years ago this country consumed far more fuel and energy per head than the United States—consuming about two tons a head in those days to half a ton in the United States. During the last 50 years of the 19th century our consumption was rising steadily, but in the last 25 years of that century the United States were overhauling us fast; in fact, they passed us just after the turn of the century, and at the present time they are consuming about twice as much fuel and energy per head as we are, namely, about eight tons of coal equivalent to our four. On the other hand, a more hopeful fact is that there is intense activity in the oil industry, and, I think it true to say, in all the fuel and power industries.
To turn to the oil industry, it is, of course, an immensely expanding trade, and the trade has doubled since before the war. By weight and value oil is the biggest single commodity moving in international trade outside the United States. British companies control or do nearly half of the international trade—last year about 80 to 90 million tons, in spite of Abadan. Of course, it means a considerable expenditure in foreign exchange to produce all this oil, but even in 1950 it was worth about £500 million, and this

919
year, in spite of Abadan, it may be worth between £600 million and £700 million. It means, of course, very intense activity by the companies to keep up with this virile industry throughout the world, and, indeed, last year, the capital expenditure by them was in excess of £150 million.
Refineries are going up in the Commonwealth countries all round the Indian Ocean, and, of course, there is great expansion in home refining. Here there has been a great change in the outlook of the companies, because before the war they were very inclined to have the refineries in the countries of production. Owing to the great development of the chemical industry, based on petroleum products from the refineries, and also to the fact that these very large modern tankers of about 30,000 tons capacity have made the transport of crude oil about the world so much cheaper, there has been a move to have the refineries more in the countries of consumption.
Thus it is that, with the assistance of the Government, home refining, which was practically negligible before the war, has reached a rate of about 24 million tons this year, and it may be even 30 million tons next year. We may find, too, exports of about five million tons this year from refineries in this country—which, it is a little sad to reflect, is, in terms of coal equivalent, almost the amount we reduced our coal exports to last year.
I think we ought not to leave the subject of oil without congratulating the companies on the remarkable successes of the measures they have taken to make up for the loss of the Abadan. In doing that, we must pay also a tribute to the very great co-operation this country has received from the United States oil companies.
I turn now to coal, the industrial giant which supports the whole of our industrial economy. Last November I had to report a very serious prospect. There was an estimate that there would be a fall of 10,000 in the manpower in the mines this year, and there was also a prospective deficit of from 4½ to 5½ million tons. Since then, I am glad to say, there has been as the months have gone by, a gradual but cumulative improvement. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman said—although, I think, he slightly depre-
920
ciated it—we were very much helped by the mild winter, not only because it enabled the private householders to get by on a relatively small consumption and a rather small allocation, but also, of course, because it so much reduced the consumption by industry and helped the opencast production so much.
Since then the National Coal Board has carried on with very vigorous recruiting for more mining manpower. The Government have introduced special housing schemes for the miners, and I think it is true to say that there is a return of confidence in the industry among mining families. Instead therefore of a fall of 10,000, the manpower in the industry has risen by 23,000 since last November. Following on that, production is up—not as much as we should like, but still up; stocks are up still more, and exports are up still more than that.
The Government have gradually authorised increasing exports, and they will almost certainly be this year almost half as much again in tonnage as they were last year, when, including slurry, they were 7¾ million tons; and this year the corresponding figure may be 12½ million. With the rise in price at the beginning of the year, they will bring in about £60 million in foreign exchange, instead of £30 million last year. I think the Committee will agree that, while that is a start, it is not enough, and everybody knows it. The country badly needs these bigger exports. Also, in the industry both the National Coal Board and, I am glad to say, the National Union of Mineworkers are convinced that it is in the interests of the industry itself that Britain should get back into her traditional coal markets, particularly on the Continent, just as soon as she can.
It is true to say, I think, that there is a feeling in the industry that things may have taken a definite turn for the better, because manpower is still rising steadily—a thing which is rather unusual at this time of year—and there is, particularly, a very high proportion of boys among the new entrants and, I again emphasise, from the mining families, which is one of the most important things. This influx of manpower is reaching a point where it is having some very important effects, and I should like to analyse it a little. As many hon. Members opposite know

921
much better than I do, it takes many months to train the recruits; and for boys, in most areas, although it differs in some, about nine months would. I think, be the right figure.
Mr. Tom Brown: Eighteen months.
Mr. Lloyd: On a matter like this I would not dispute that with the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the advice that I have received from the National Coal Board. Generally speaking, the recruits go first into the haulage lines, which releases men from the haulage lines from behind the face so that they can be upgraded to the face.
As a result of the continued influx of manpower we have now reached the point where additional face room is required, and the result is that the National Coal Board are having to take some of the most experienced men off the face, not merely in order to make what are called renewal faces, but additional faces as well. The immediate effect of taking some of the best men off the faces and having an influx of inexperienced recruits is not very helpful to productivity at the face, and I hope that this is one of the reasons why, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is this rather disappointing feature, that output per man-shift at the face is even a little lower than it was last year. Of course, output per man-shift is almost bound to suffer a certain reduction with an influx of manpower as long and as continuous as this, for the same general reason, that there is so much inexperienced manpower now in the total.
If I may just pause for one moment here. I know that in some quarters there is a certain amount of grumbling against the miners. If I might put it broadly, whenever things do not go completely right in other walks of life, with doctors, or with Ministers, people always grumble; and I suppose that some people, seeing that things are not going as we want in the mines, start grumbling at the miners. I think that the miner, putting him in the same class as the British sailor, is the last person in the world to want fulsome compliments from anybody, but he is entitled to have the facts that speak in his favour stated in the Committee, and, if I may say so, stated by the Minister of Fuel and Power.
The output per man-shift underground of the British miner is at the present
922
time, not only higher than it was before the war, but higher than in any other major Western coal-producing country. Then those that grumble say, "Ah! but that is not the real figure. The real figure is output per man-year, because that takes into account absenteeism and everything else." It therefore gives me particular pleasure today to point out that the output per man-year of the British miner is higher than that of the miner in any other major coal-producing country in Western Europe.
The expansion of the labour force that I have mentioned, and the gradual effects it has in filling up the faces and in leading to more face room, although inclined to have a bad effect on productivity in the short-term, is thoroughly healthy from the point of view of the production of this great industry in the longer term. Therefore, although I do not feel able to make forecasts of the figures for next year—because, as everybody who knows this industry appreciates, there are so many imponderable factors which can go different ways—if present trends continue and all goes well there is a possibility that next year we might, with opencast, produce more coal than we did on an average in the years before the war and achieve a bigger rate of increase in exports than this year.
Mr. T. Brown: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, with the developments now being worked, we should get the benefit of increased face room for the men who are now being trained to take the places of those who are now operating, and as a result we shall get a further improvement, not in 1952 but in 1953–54, but we shall have to wait until that development has taken place.
Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that, because that was the point I was trying to make. We are in what ought to be thought of as a seed year, and we ought to begin to get the proper result of the increased manpower after it has been trained, and of the additional faces perhaps, I would say round about Christmas of this year, and I hope with increasing effect after that.
Perhaps I might now turn for a moment to the gas and electricity industries. These industries, in the main, do

923
not contribute directly to the balance of payments, but they do make a contribution indirectly very powerfully. Electricity does so dramatically in its effect on productivity, because anybody who knows the factories knows that, the more modern and complex a machine tool almost inevitably the more electric motors there are in it. Anybody who knows the metal industries of the Midlands, for example, will appreciate what an enormous part gas plays in the annealing furnaces, and so on, in the metal industries, on which the country is particularly relying, in respect of both re-armament and exports.
Also, when turning to these utility industries, we enter—as I would point out particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—the field of fuel utilisation and the efficiency of fuel utilisation in its most massive aspect. These two industries together use over 60 million tons of coal a year. Here it is satisfactory to note—because we are sometimes inclined to overlook it—that the drive for fuel efficiency is carried on ceaselessly and successfully.
The right hon. Gentleman touched a little on that point, and it is true to say—and, if I may be allowed to say so, it was also true before the war when the industry was not nationalised—that year by year the electricity industry in this country, however organised, increases the thermal efficiency of the new power stations it constructs. Last year the new power stations saved 800,000 tons of coal, and I would think that by about a year from now another million tons of coal will have been saved by the extra thermal efficiency of the new power stations constructed during the period.
In gas, too, the newer gasification plants are more efficient and experiments are being carried out in the total gasification of coal—that is producing gas without making coke—which has the advantage of a wider range of coals being used. Experiments are also being made in the gas world in the total gasification of fuel oil which links up with the great increase of home refineries here, and of which, I am told, one of the great advantages is that while it produces a gas which is really the thermal equivalent of ordinary coal gas, the capital equipment to produce it is much less expen-
924
sive than that used with coal as a basic material.
The right hon. Gentleman touched on this point, I think, that both electricity and gas have their grids. The electricity grid is much larger and is much better known. I think that not enough attention has been paid to the importance of the gas grid.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend. The gas grid was first developed in this country in South Yorkshire before the war—if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to point that out—and it was not just the development that comes from nationalisation. It has been much expanded and seems to be springing up in all the areas of the country. It has the advantage of being able to link up with the coke ovens, planned by the National Coal Board, and by some of the steel companies, and it will also link up, we hope, to take some of the refinery gasses—that is surplus gas produced in the oil refineries. What is very important, and rather new for gas, is the idea now being discussed of linking up the Sheffield-Nottingham area and the Birmingham area by an inter-connecting gas grid communication across the Midlands.
With regard to the electricity grid, very important developments are planned. I think that there is some misunderstanding about the functions of the existing grid. That grid was really planned only to take rather temporary and relatively small passages of power, so to speak, between local grids and power stations. It was never planned for the continuous and bulk transmission of large amounts of power. That is the purpose of the new 275,000 volt grid. It is, I think, particularly interesting that this grid will link up with the new power stations which the British Electricity Authority are planning to build in the expanding area of the East Midlands coalfields, and which will ultimately mean the bringing of very large amounts of power to London which had, in fact, been generated in electricity stations sited in the East Midlands coalfields.
I believe that ultimately it may be necessary to raise the voltage of this

925
super-grid, particularly for this purpose, to something near 400,000 volts, and that may mean—as much as 2 million kilowatts will be going about 120 miles to London, which will be the equivalent of about 4½ million tons of coal which will not then have to be transported by rail.
I ought also I think to mention, because it is rather important from the point of view of fuel efficiency, that the British Electricity Authority and the National Coal Board are planning to construct power stations in particular areas in the coalfields in order to use coal which is really practically unsaleable for any other purpose, and these stations will, of course, also be connected with the grid.
I should like to mention what I think is a rather interesting development in the grid. For some time, the British Electricity Authority and the Electricité de France have had a joint committee which have been studying the possibility and the desirability of having a submarine power cable under the Channel which would connect the electricity grid of the two, countries. This Committee has been working for some time, and it has now made a report which indicates that it should be technically possible to do it, although a good deal of experiment will be necessary in order to make quite sure that it can be done properly.
I am glad to think that the experience gained in the laying of the Pluto pipeline will almost certainly be useful to electrical engineers in this peacetime project. It is also felt that it is commercially desirable partly because the peak hours in the two countries, partly for social reasons, partly for industrial, and partly for climatic, take place at different times. It may be that at some time in the future we may, from time to time, draw some power in this country from the hydroelectric stations of the Alps and make a similar return across the cable from the coalfields of the East Midlands to France. The position at present is that the British Electricity Authority are engaged in considering that report.
Mr. Robens: I take it that the committee are not dealing with the strategic aspect of a policy such as that, and that, in this very important development, the B.E.A. will not be authorised to go ahead with such a scheme until the Government have very carefully considered it?
Mr. Lloyd: As I have said, the B.E.A. are now considering it, but, of course, it will also be for the Government to consider it as well. I think that the Committee will see that there is great technical progress and activity in all these fuel and power industries, certainly in the extracting industries.
I think that we have to go one stage further, because we cannot merely depend on the active technical development taking place at the moment. We have to have an active system of research looking for better techniques and methods of utilising fuel in the future. Here, all the nationalised industries, and certainly the oil industry, are extremely active in research. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Department is engaged also in a research programme of a practical nature, and, in particular, there are two interesting projects at present under way.
One of them is related to the utilisation of the principle of the gas turbine, of which, of course, the jet and the Comet jet airliner is a particular example, for general engineering purposes and motive power on the ground. The Department is developing a form of gas turbine which has already successfully run on coal instead of oil, and, what I must say surprises me every time I think of it, it is also being made to run even on peat. That is rather an interesting development and, of course, it can have a considerable influence in the utilisation of fuel in the future, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will agree that the gas turbine is inherently an efficient unit.
The other research going on is in regard to what is called the underground gasification of coal. Let me make it quite clear that the objective here is the utilisation of what is believed to be about 1,000 million tons of coal which is so bad in quality or so difficult to work by virtue of the narrow seams that it can never be mined by ordinary methods.
Already two schemes have been tried out. The interesting thing is that both have succeeded in obtaining a thermally useful gas. It is not like the coal gas we get in the gas supply, but it is a form of gas which would be useful to drive an engine for the purpose, for example, of making electricity. Gas has now been

927
obtained at two sites where the coal conditions were very different. It was obtained by drilling, and a pneumatic process for making the junction between the two drilled holes in the seams has been discovered. Thus the whole process of the production of gas can be started by means only of the drilling and without anybody having to go underground. That has interesting possibilities for the future.
I said earlier that the consumption per head of fuel in this country and America was a very interesting and important fact in the national life. That is so, but we must remember that those were the crude figures. They are only half the story. There is also the efficiency of utilisation. Let us see what the position of this country is. It is not that we are somebody with no resources at all and having to try to make something out of nothing. On the other hand, our position is not that we have such overmastering resources compared with other countries as we had in the 19th century.
What we have is this wonderful reserve of coal and this great industry, which, in spite of criticism, is still sustaining the whole of our national economy, not with all the force that we want, but it is still substantially sustaining it all the time. We have to get that industry into a thoroughly prosperous and efficient state again, and then, with the use of industrial management and scientific research and proper application, ensure that the country does a really good job with the efficient utilisation of the fuel when produced.
Dr. Horace King: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question before he resumes his seat? I did not want to interrupt what I am certain everybody regarded as a very interesting and, indeed, amazing speech from the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the vitally important part which the oil refining industry is playing in the present economic crisis. Can he say a word or two about the attitude of the Government towards the expansion of home oil refineries and, in particular, about the one which means so much to people in my part of the world, the proposed second oil refinery in Hampshire?
Mr. Lloyd: I could not make another speech, but I have no doubt that the
928
Parliamentary Secretary will give attention to that matter.
Mr. Robens: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman before he finally closes whether he has left the Parliamentary Secretary to answer all the questions that I raised, about domestic supplies and so on?
Mr. Lloyd: I answered some of the right hon. Gentleman's points, but I did not feel that I could answer them all and make the survey that I wanted to make without keeping the Committee too long.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. William Paling: In every part of the Committee we have listened with great attention and interest to survey which the Minister has made of the wide field of fuel and power, and we have been particularly interested in the experiments which are taking place. We were also interested in the Minister's remarks about returning confidence in the mining industry. They made us feel that the Minister is happy to be the Minister of the nationalised industries, as I am sure he is.
The recently published Report of the National Coal Board is very illuminating. It does not try to gloss over mistakes or failures; it openly admits that, while it has had successes, it has also had failures and difficulties. The Report also shows how attempts have been made to overcome many of the problems and difficulties with which the industry has been faced.
The Report surveys the development of the industry since it was taken over by the National Coal Board five years ago. It shows that the five years of nationalisation have laid very good foundations for all possibilities of coal development and output, working conditions, relationships between management and men, safety measures, and health and welfare measures. When we take all those matters into consideration, it is a wonderful achievement by the industry in five years. It is also a wonderful achievement that relationships are now so good.
That relationships are good is shown by the development which has taken place during the last five years. The figures of output in 1946–47 and 1951 and the development of output per man-year between 1946 and 1951 are significant and they fit in very well with the

929
survey which the Minister has made of the whole field of fuel and power. The foundations which have been laid are foundations upon which this major industry can be rebuilt in such a fashion that it becomes the real basis of the future prosperity of the country. Now that the foundations have been laid, whether or not it becomes the real basis of the country's future prosperity depends on how we treat it.
There are difficulties in the mining industry. There are certain difficulties which we have to face in our mines compared with the mines on the Continent. Many of our pits have been run for so many years that we have the problem of transport over long distances between the mining face and the pit bottom. A number of such problems have been encountered during the last five years, but they have very largely been overcome by new methods of transport and haulage. Although they will last for some years yet, a number of our thicker seams are gradually going out and rather thinner seams are coming into development.
It is pleasing to know, as a result of the research which has taken place, that our reserves of good saleable coal, coal that other countries will be pleased to get hold of, are good for another 200 years. On that basis there is every reason for a wide expansion of the industry in such a way as to make it the basic industry of the country.
Machinery for the industry, including new methods of haulage, new conveyors, new coal cutters and such things, has been very widely discussed in the past in the Press and in this Chamber, and, while we must look to the new machinery in the pits for a great deal of help, we must remember that the increased output during the last few years has been the result not only of new machinery but also, very largely, of harder work by the men in the industry.
It has been said that there were more men to pick from, but the fluctuations in the numbers of men working in the pits over five years balance themselves out, so that we can say with certainty that the difference in manpower in five years has not altered at all, and yet an increase in output has been achieved. That has been accomplished, firstly because of more machinery; but secondly, and most
930
important, because of the harder work of the men engaged in the industry. That in itself shows the good relationships that are gradually growing up in this industry, and for this we should be grateful.
There is a paragraph in the financial part of the National Coal Board's Report which worries me, and that is the deficiency of £1.8 million. For the life of me I cannot understand how it can be called a deficiency when the Board are asked to carry the burden of £5½ million for the cost of importing coal, and then are asked to pay £2 million in profits tax. It seems to me rather remarkable.
First of all, there is a deficiency and yet the Board have had to pay £2 million Profits Tax and are also called upon to meet the cost of £5½ million on imported coal. To me and to the people of the country it is a strange method of accountancy which shows the Coal Board on the wrong side and yet having to pay such things as the loss on imported coal and money to the Ministry of Fuel and Power for interest.
I should like to know how it is worked out that the loss on American coal has to be accounted to the Coal Board; and secondly. why, when there is a loss, the Board have to pay £2 million in Profits Tax. It almost looks as if when the Coal Board break even they must pay this Profits Tax and show a loss. I cannot understand why the Government should take such a tax when the balance sheet shows a sum of £14½ million being paid to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which I understand is for dividends to the late coal owners. These are puzzling statements to the man in the street, and I should like to have some enlightenment on them.
Leaving the financial side of the matter, I should like to deal with the general position of coal, the question of the new plan and the hopes for the future. Many of us have wondered how far the new plan is going to go, and just what development is to take place. First, the great proportion of the collieries showed a profit of £48 million, but a number of collieries worked at a loss. Is it possible in the re-organisation that is taking place now among the collieries, for those collieries working at a loss at the moment to be put into a position to make a profit, or are those collieries among those that will gradually go out of existence when

931
new collieries are sunk in different parts of the country? That is a question that I have been asked on one or two occasions, but I am not quite sure of the answer.
As to general development, I agree with the Minister that the industry will have to go forward, and be encouraged to do so, in order that the amount of coal that this country requires for home consumption and for export may be obtained. What are the real plans for the immediate future? I know that a number of collieries are being sunk or sites have been selected. Is it both the Minister's and the Board's intention to go full speed ahead with the development of new mining areas in order to meet the planned output 10 or 12 years hence, and which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend as being about 240 million tons?
Many of us in the industry have a feeling that this development of the new mining areas is not going ahead as fast as it really should do, and certainly not as fast as some of us would like. We should like to see the new modern mines in operation and developing at as early a date as possible, and I should like to know how far the Coal Board are going in the development of these new mining areas, and the tying up of that with the sinking of new pits.
There are two other points which strike me and on which I must comment. One is the question of the conservation of coal, and particularly using coal more efficiently than we are doing at the present time. I was very interested to hear the Minister outlining what is being done in that direction, and I think that the Coal Board have realised the importance of trying to make the fullest possible use of coal. It is necessary that these schemes should go ahead as fast as possible and that the country should be encouraged to make better use of coal than at present. A vast amount of wealth is going up the chimneys of our factories, workshops and houses every day of the week, and the sooner we control it the better it will be not only from the financial point of view but from the point of view of better health for many in the heavy industrial areas of this country.
Secondly, how far has development gone in the carbonisation of coal? There is a great field there that has not yet been explored as rapidly as could be
932
the case. We have begun to realise that coal is the most important raw material we have in this country and that we should make better use of it than we have done in the past. It is largely a question of utilisation and of carbonisation by the various methods which the Minister has outlined this afternoon and which are all very useful and important. But how far are we ahead with this development, particularly carbonisation?
In the past the possibilities of the byproducts of this great raw material—oil, tar, gas and fertilisers—have all been appreciated and they have played a very important part in our national life. What developments are likely to take place in the future? Whatever they may be, I should like to see them taking place within the nationalised industry and also the ancillary organisations which cover this great industry.
The marketing of coal by a thousand and one organisations creates considerable overlapping. I refer not only to those dealing with sales inside this country but those which handle for export. The National Coal Board are, I know, entitled to do some of it, but to have so many other organisations selling coal seems to be hopelessly out-of-date. A marketing scheme should be devised to make the distribution of coal easier and more efficient than at present and to help the industry to become stronger.
The nationalisation of the mining industry has had a very great stabilising effect. It has proved a boon to the workers and has effected a saving of life from accidents in the mines. Today we have a healthier, happier and more efficient industry. All these factors together create a very pleasing picture.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. Robson Brown: I am sure that the Committee and the country will be impressed with the objectivity, sincerity and constructive observations of the speeches made from the two Front Benches. I hope the tone of those speeches will permeate the whole of our debate, in view of the vital importance of this key industry and the powerful contribution it makes to the welfare of the nation. I am sorry that I cannot follow in the line of the speech made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling), who is much experienced in these matters, except to say that I do not think

933
this is the time to disturb the marketing arrangements on the home front. We should concentrate our efforts upon the export trade.
The survey given by the Minister of the recruitment of men and boys into the industry, the general attitude within the industry, and the production figures, redound to the credit of everybody associated with the production of coal. The improvement has been gradual but positive, and I think it will be sustained, which is the most important point. The National Coal Board have every reason for sober satisfaction in their survey of the year. These have been long and difficult years for them, and it is only now that light is beginning to show in the establishment of mutual trust and confidence between the men at the face and the men on the Coal Board.
Hobart House was for too long looked upon as the legatee of the coal companies instead of as the trustee of the industry for the nation. There has been a change of heart, and when we arrive at the full establishment of confidence in the industry the figures will greatly improve and the conditions in the industry will be a much more important factor than they have been up to now.
The two aspects of this question of mutual trust to which I want to refer are, the human element and education in the industry. Some miners even now look upon the Coal Board and its judgments and decisions with suspicion, partly because the full facts are not always presented to them. The miner at the coal face is still apt to be afraid of the repercussions of the building up of coal stocks. In this Committee we all know the reason for building them up. They are safety stocks against bad winters and against the disruption of railway services. We know that those stocks never would or could be used in any shape or form for retaliation against the men. Nevertheless, I know from my contacts that there are miners who say, "Never again will we permit the building up of stocks so that they can be used against us in the event of a strike or something of that sort in the trade." The same considerations apply in regard to coal exports.
The Coal Board are moving positively and successfully forward in their contacts not only with the leaders of the men—they are with them all the time—but with
934
the men at the pit face. I would like the Board to give plenty of consideration to means whereby they might acquaint the pits themselves, pit by pit, with the intentions and prospects of the export trade, not only on a national basis, but from the point of view of the pit, as well as of the area within which each pit is located.
I want to see miners fully informed and enthused about the export position. I know that many miners fear that the export demand might not be sustained, and that after they have brought up the coal and achieved extra output a whole train of trouble might arise. It is our duty and the duty of the Coal Board to remove that very positive and natural fear from the minds of the men.
Now a word about the human element and the relationships within the industry. I was privileged last year to go to the National Coal Board Summer School at Oxford. It ran for a week in various colleges in that city, and it was an extraordinarily courageous and brilliant conception. Men from the pits in considerable numbers gathered with men at medium levels of responsibility, managers, salesmen and many other sorts of people. I make the personal confession that I went in a spirit of criticism, but I came away tremendously impressed.
I saw many young miners from all over the country. I talked to them and listened to them speaking in the debate. I came away greatly heartened and encouraged about the possibilities of the future of the industry. If the spirit permeating that summer school existed in many other industries it would be well for those industries. The school is going on, and I know that it will have the same success this year and will reach the same objectives.
One thing that came out from those conferences was that the line of communication from the Board to the men at the face is not as straight and clear as it might be, and that more impediments are in the way than was necessary, good or advisable. I believe that the Board are conscious of the position and are doing everything in their power to see that fundamental first principles affecting the men on a national, area and pit base are properly explained to the men and that the men's point of view is listened to and acted upon if necessary.

935
We cannot minimise the fact that a national industry like this has many formidable problems. Some have been mentioned in this Committee and are obvious to everybody, but the human problem will remain the most formidable and important.
The recruitment of boys to the pit face is very satisfactory, but I wonder whether that is true of the recruitment of boys to be the technicians, managers and scientists of the industry. I can only speak from experience as Chairman of the Education Committee of the Coke Industry. We have worked in collaboration with the National Coal Board, and have a university training scheme and a scheme for the training of personnel with-in the industry. I have come to the conclusion, and my Committee support me—the matter was also discussed at a meeting of university professors which we convened this year—that schoolmasters and careers masters of secondary schools, grammar schools and the like are not as sympathetic as they might be, and are not encouraging their best boys to go into industry.
In particular, they are looking askance at recruitment to the coal industry. I believe that such a statement should be made from the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope that, merely because of prejudice, there will be no form of boycott, no pressure brought to bear upon young men of talent whom the industry want, and would welcome. Technical recruitment is of the greatest importance because, if we do not have technicians, we shall not have efficiency.
The attitude within the coal industry of increasing confidence in itself, in the Coal Board, and in the people who control its destiny is one of the most important factors in the recovery of the country during the last 12 months because the coal industry is still our greatest industry. In this Committee and in our individual capacities we must do all in our power to make it the best and the most secure of our industries.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. W. H. Mainwaring: I think that the entire Committee welcomes the atmosphere in which this discussion, rather than debate, is taking place this afternoon, and that the Minister perhaps counts himself among the
936
most blessed of Ministers of Fuel and Power for the circumstances that now obtain in this country. We feel pleased that he is able to make that claim, if he wishes to do so because nothing would please the mining section in this Committee more than to see continued prosperity and increasing productiveness in this industry.
Perhaps no other section in the Committee fully appreciates the vast changes that have taken place since those interwar years during which we passed through disastrous and anarchic conditions in the mining industry. Changes were taking place week by week and month by month in working conditions through the downward pressure of wages. I do not know that we can expect as yet the complete eradication of the intense feelings generated among the miners of those days. Such things cannot be eliminated in a short time, and it will take a few years yet to strengthen the new attitude towards the present administration.
I want to touch upon an aspect other than that of compliments paid by one side of the Committee to the other. What are the industrial relations within the industry? Are they all that we should like them to be? The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) referred to one aspect. There is another which we must face boldly. One cause of discontent prevalent in the industry today is there is much too great a tendency to increase officialdom. I say that as one of the most ardent advocates in this Committee of nationalisation. I would hesitate to condemn anything resulting from nationalisation, but the tendency to multiply unnecessary officials in the industry is not a part of nationalisation. It is an alien element, and more alien to the advocates of nationalisation than to possibly any other sections of this Committee.
We resent any nationalised industry falling into disrepute on account of the multiplication of people who are not contributing in any way to increased productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to draw the attention of the Coal Board to this fact, and to the burning resentment against it felt by the miners. I speak on behalf of the miners this afternoon, not on behalf of the general public, and those engaged in the industry are drawing the

937
attention of the House of Commons, not of the Coal Board, to this problem, which is causing them so much concern.
Again, owing to the general commercial relations in the world today there is an undue tendency to dwell upon the possibility of increasing exports and on the expansion of the industry. I want to ask hon. Members this question: For how many years can we rely upon home resources of coal? Some hon. Members might be satisfied if we could say 100 years, but 100 years in the life of a nation is not long and there is a tendency to overlook the problems that will arise at the end of that time.
In the South Wales coalfields problems will arise much earlier than that. In the Rhondda Valley, which I have the honour to represent here, the next 50 years will bring about vast changes. Indeed, there will be very little mining in the Rhondda at the end of 50 years. What social problems will come into being? Taking the minefields of Britain as a whole, how much change will there be in the present major coalfields within the next 100 years?
What is being done to solve the problems that will arise? My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. R obens) referred to the possibilities of electrical development. What is being done to promote the Severn barrage scheme? Whether we like it or not, there will come a day when we shall have to find some power other than coal. If the output of our coalfields shows a tendency to fall below their present level, then the problems of this country will increase proportionately.
It is our bounden duty to attempt to foresee some of the problems that will arise. Side by side with the problem of fuel we shall have these vast social problems which I anticipate will arise in parts of the South Wales coalfields, not merely of finding fuel, but of creating other industries in those areas now happily employed in mining. We ought not to lose sight of those things at this juncture. We ought to be thinking of the well-being of the nation not only for this day or year or for our life-time, but in terms of the life-time of the nation, and we ought to be thinking ahead to the time when the problems of which I have spoken will compel us to take note of them.
938
I am very glad that in this Committee today we have been able to discuss this matter in the way we have done. It is the first time since the industry has been nationalised that there has been a discussion free from acrimony and of charges from one side against the other. I welcome that, because the House of Commons should be applying itself, without any prejudice, without seeking to attach the blame to this one or that one, to discussing the real problems.
We have enough on our plate now if we are to develop the resources of the industry to the utmost possible degree. Applied science as we know it can be utilised, as is evidenced in the current reports of the National Coal Board. The industry is now throwing over the disadvantages and the disabilities from which it suffered. Let us do everything we can to assist in that development by every means within our power.
5.10 p.m.
Colonel Ralph Clarke: I will not follow the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) very far, because most of the points he raised should be answered, if there are answers to them, from the Front Bench. I suggest, however, that within 100 years coal, except for the extraction of chemicals, will not be such a vital question in this country. Some other sources of power, such as nuclear energy, and so on, will have presented themselves.
When I first started speaking in the House on matters relating to coal, I had to declare an interest. That interest today is considerably less than it was, but it exists to some extent and, therefore, I feel it is only right to declare it. I want, first, to speak on a matter which I do not think has been mentioned this afternoon: that is, safety in mines. I mention this first because of its immense importance, and secondly, because within the last week there have been nine fatalities in the mines, three at the Manor Powys Colliery and six at the Point of Air Colliery.
Quite frankly, I feel that the National Coal Board Report for 1951, on the subject of safety in mines, is just a little too complacent. I do not, however, want to be unfair, and I am quite ready to read extracts from the Report, if necessary, to prove my point. The Board say,

939
for example, in paragraph 227 of their Annual Report, that:
"Fewer men were killed in 1949 than in any year for which there are records."
Then they go on:
"Unhappily, through the fire at Creswell Colliery in Derbyshire, the number of deaths in 1950 was higher."
Since then, we have had the report on that tragic accident at Creswell, and I think that it is rather disturbing. In the conclusion, on page 37, I read this:
"There is little doubt that present practice in many mines leaves much to be desired and that it can and should be improved."
That is a very critical statement. The Report also says that undoubtedly one of the causes of the tragedy was the failure of the fire-fighting equipment.
I do not want to be over-critical, and I want to give a full credit for what has been done. Actually, over the last five years, there has been a reduction in the reportable casualties in the mines of 635, or 127 per annum. That is a very considerable performance, but there is no room for complacency. With the advance in mechanisation, and particularly in haulage, research must go on, not only parallel with the times but ahead of them, in order to anticipate accidents and thereby to prevent them happening.
I should like to say a word or two about exports. One can only consider the whole question of exports by first taking into account what is happening on the Continent and how the Continental coal producing countries are getting on with their job. A comparison between the output in 1937 and the output for 1952, as estimated by O.E.E.C. member countries and submitted to the Ministerial Production Group, shows that certain countries are now ahead of their pre-war production. Countries in this category include France, the Saar, and Belgium. From other sources, I understand that in the Ruhr the average daily output, which is the way in which their production is calculated, in May last was 426,000 tons, as against a pre-war output of 420,000 tons. They seem, therefore, not only to have got back to their pre-war position, but to have exceeded it.
Although Europe is crying out for coal, it is no longer crying out merely for anything that is black. Until not very long ago, one could sell stuff that was taken
940
off old pit heaps which had been covered with grass and almost even with trees, or stuff that was swept up on wharves and quays. But that is no longer the case. Last week, in Italy, American coal was cheaper in price than the British. There is no doubt that our customers abroad are getting much more "choosey," although there is still quite a good demand.
Probably it was because of the big fall in freight rates that American coal was last week quoted more cheaply in Italy than British coal. Polish coal, although still more expensive than British coal, is more popular in some markets. Not only is it a better steam coal in many ways, but it has the advantage that it can be railed direct into works and does not have to be unshipped, put into trucks and dispatched again by rail.
We know that we have a good margin of profit on our exported coal. That margin was increased after the beginning of the war in Korea. We have a good margin and we can, if necessary, reduce it. That, however, would involve a loss on all the coal that we are selling since the loss would have to be averaged out over the home supplies, and these would have to be raised to a higher price; otherwise, the collieries would be unable to meet their obligation to pay their way from year to year.
Everybody knows the weakness of a seller's market. Once we start making reductions, everybody is prepared to beat us down. There is no doubt whatever that there is still a great market abroad, but we must remember that it is no longer a complete seller's market and that in future we must pay attention to quality and price.
At Whitsuntide I was in Eire, whose principal export is agricultural produce. They are selling a great deal of meat now in America, and could sell a great deal more, but 15 per cent. of all their meat has by agreement to come to this country. They told me that they have honoured this obligation but that we have not always honoured our undertakings to let them have coal in return. They said that unless we do something about this in the future we might not get as much meat as we have had in the past, because the American market which has just presented itself is a much better one.

941
It is rather interesting that practically all the United States coal that is now coming to Europe is coking coal. Although the demand for it is falling, France, Germany, Belgium and Autsria still take it to a certain extent. That brings one to the whole question of coking coals and their importance, and to the fact that they are in diminishing quantities.
After all, coking coals are of immense importance for metallurgical use, as a source of chemicals, and for providing smokeless fuel though we are, of course, getting some of the chemicals from an alternative source, from the oil refineries. I believe that in the last war half the toluene used was made from oil and not from coal at all. It is by far the most valuable form of coal that we have. Supplies of it are short, and are getting shorter.
I shall be glad if the Minister will say whether there are yet any real signs of the commercial and economic practice of blending taking place in the near future. Is blended coal being used in any substantial quantity for the making of coke, or is it available for customers abroad as an alternative to our straight coking coal?
I particularly want to know what is happening on the North-East coast, where the blending of Durham and Northumberland coal might be undertaken, and whether, in South Wales, there has been blending of high and low volatile coal. This has been done in Europe with some success. Of course, those two districts, South Wales and Durham and Northumberland, are the traditional coking districts. The coke ovens are there, and it is much cheaper to produce blended coals there than to move them about all over England. They are also the historic exporting districts for coking coal, and it would be an important thing to have them there for shipment purposes.
I was a little surprised to find no reference to blending in the whole of the Coal Board's Report. I may have overlooked it, but I should be surprised if I had. I know that work is being done concerning the problems by the British Coke Research Association, and in their 1950 Report there was a paper on the work of the Coal Board on this subject which was written by Dr. Idris Jones. I know that the Fuel Research Station is also working on it. I hope that the Minister
942
will be able to give me a simple answer to the questions I have asked from the commercial angle rather than that of research.
I now want to say a few words about the shortage of house coal. I wonder whether people have reflected that this shortage is not only a hardship to those who live in the houses, but is, in many cases, rapidly deteriorating the houses themselves. We cannot ventilate a house with central heating or with an electric fire as we could with the old-fashioned coal fire. The rain beats against the chimney and drives into the brick. If there is no warm smoke going up the chimney it never gets dry, the damp works down into the house, and the wood is destroyed. The result is dry rot. Therefore, the shortage of house coal is deteriorating the capital value of our houses as well as causing hardship.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) suggested that the distributive trade could be better carried on nationally. I would remind him that, apart from the technical service and the individual attention given by distributors to their customers, if the trade were taken over nationally an immense amount of capital would have to be found. We should have to find capital to take over something like 50,000 or 60,000 road vehicles, the ships to carry the 25 million-odd tons of coal transported by sea, the depots, and all the rest.
The Coal Board require payment at seven days' notice for shipments, and on the 15th day of each month for inland despatched coal, but that is not the time at which it is collected from the consumers. The distributors thus also carry a big financial responsibility, and, of course, capital is very much needed by the Coal Board in its own industry.
I now turn to another fuel industry, namely, gas. There is a saying:
"Happy is the country which has no history."
I certainly think that the industry is happy which has no contemporary history, which is not always in the newspapers and the subject of Questions in this Chamber, and so on. In that respect, I think that in the last few years the gas industry has had an advantage over both the coal and electricity industries.
Mr. Nabarro: It is jolly well run.
Colonel Clarke: It has a very long history—over a century and a quarter—and I think it has been in a happier position than the others. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said a word of praise for that industry because I am certain that in its quiet, unobtrusive, solid way it has in the last few years since nationalisation, as for many years before it, done an immense service to all those who use gas.
There are two reasons for that. One is that it is working under a better Act than either the coal or the electricity industry. It was the third of the series and the one which both the right hon. Gentleman and I know very well received the most attention. I think he will agree that it received very careful attention. It is rather interesting to note how many of those who gave it that attention have since come to honourable positions on the Front Benches of both sides of the Committee.
There is another thing which has given gas some advantage. It is that whereas when the coal industry was nationalised there was really a wholesale elimination of directors, as a result of which administrators in many places today have to be found from among men who should really be working as engineers—and the same is true for different reasons in the electricity industry—what one might term the brains behind the gas industry have remained with it.
I want to congratulate the Minister on the absence of electricity cuts over the last year. I hope that they will be avoided in the future. I suggest that the cheapest way of avoiding them is for as many power stations as possible to have some form of stand-by plant which can cut in at the peak period whenever necessary, and not at other times.
I also want to ask the Minister another thing which perhaps he will not have time to tell me today. Not long ago I was very interested to hear that somewhere in Caernarvonshire the B.E.A. had obtained permission to erect a wind generator for making electricity. I should like to know how that is getting on. Actually in my own village there are two cottages where people are already doing this. They are working with a dynamo and batteries from old cars. They are not getting a 24-hour service of electricity, but they are able
944
to light their cottages for a good many days and, more important, nights in the year. It has been quite a success.
This debate is ranging widely. I should like to say a word about oil. I wish to call the attention of other producers of fuel and power to the progress which oil is making. The Minister has already enlarged on this to some extent; I think it is very striking. While, in the race we are watching, the three horses which we know best—coal, electricity and gas—are racing against each other, we are sometimes apt to overlook oil coming up on the rails on the other side. It has two great advantages; it is so clean to handle—it is often merely a matter of turning a tap—and it is definitely labour saving. One sees that clearly when one has to engage firemen for a ship today. It also has the advantage that it has no ash to dispose of, and in view of much of the coal supplied today, especially for power stations, that is a very important consideration.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is still here because I wish to say how glad I am that he started this debate in the way he did and in the way in which it has since been continued. Fuel and power are today undoubtedly of national importance and should rank with foreign affairs and agriculture as requiring a long view and not being, in these difficult days, the subject of any party strife that can be avoided.
There is one other point about these nationalised industries which interests me. I see in them two rather conflicting lines of thought. Will they develop on the lines of a service like the Army or the Navy or more on the lines of great industries? The two ideas are rather conflicting and I do not think that both can be applied; at all events, there must be a bias in one direction or the other.
I believe that as time goes on the tendency will be towards the service conception because there will be fewer and fewer of those working in those industries who have had any experience of the market place in their lives. When those industries were nationalised they included men who had been brought up in commerce, but as time goes on the industry will no longer have those men. Those of us who have been in the Services and also in private industry know that there are great differences between the two—but I

945
do not want to become controversial. There are advantages and disadvantages in both conceptions, but the Service conception is a very fine one.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. William Blyton: I do not wish to follow the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) very far in the arguments he has put forward, except to say that in respect of many of the economic problems which we have to face I am in entire agreement with him.
This debate is taking place in the nicest atmosphere that I have experienced, and it is taking place at the time when we have before us the fifth Report of nationalised coal industry It is just as well that we should remember that it was the Reid report which said that the old system could not, from a technical point of view, carry out the changes needed in the mining industry which took place after the nationalisation of the mines in 1947. Therefore, I wish to look objectively, if I can, at the balance sheet for the last five years of nationalised mines.
We find that in the first year there was a terrific howl in the country because there was a loss of £23.3 million, and it was laid down as an obligation under the Act that any deficiency in one year had to be carried in future years until such time as it was liquidated. We now find that the deficiency has been reduced to less than £5 million.
In the balance sheet for 1951 we find that the wage increases of the miners are due in the main to the increased output which has been given since 1947. There was a loss last year of £3 million due to reduced exports. How the industry came to pay last year £2 million Profits Tax when in the balance sheet a loss is shown of £1.8 million, I cannot tell. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me, when he replies, how an industry which last year lost £1.8 million had to pay £2 million Profits Tax, as shown on its balance sheet.
Again, the industry was charged with £5½ million for coal which was imported into this country from America. Why should the National Coal Board be charged this figure against its revenue, when it resulted from a decision which was made politically and was in respect
946
of coal imported into this country? It must be remembered that the price of American coal did not increase last year. What did increase were the freight charges for the shipping to bring it to this country. That was the cause of the increased cost of bringing the American coal to this country.
The main burden of my argument is that when coal is imported from America to this country as a result of a Government decision, the Government ought to bear the cost of that, and not the industry, or the cost ought to be transferred to the consumer. It is a very unfair burden to put upon the nationalised mining industry in respect of imported coal.
If we had the £5½ million which we had to pay in respect of the imported coal, and if we had not reduced our exports by £3 million last year, the mining industry balance sheet would have shown a profit of about £7 million. I suggest that even last year's balance sheet, when analysed from that point of view, shows that the mining industry, in the five years under nationalisation, has been a complete success, and that all credit is due to this side who, in face of the Opposition, carried through the nationalisation that has been the salvation of this industry.
I wish to speak briefly on the manpower problem. We are all pleased that manpower has increased about 20,000 this year compared with last year's figures. The most important thing to remember is that if we wish to maintain recruitment into mining we must have houses in the mining villages for the men to go to or we shall not attract them into those villages to take up mining employment.
There is another point. When a colliery closes, men will not shift to another colliery unless there is housing accommodation available for them, and I suggest to the Minister that he should urge the Government to make a priority of the provision of housing accommodation in the colliery villages in relation to recruiting. The important thing about recruitment is that the mining industry must be built up of young men. We cannot build up the industry by recruiting men over 40 years of age.
Mr. John McKay: While it is true that we should do everything

947
possible to provide houses for new recruits, is it not a fact that miners already working in the pits, and who have worked there for 20 or 30 years, are living in condemned colliery houses? Should they remain in those houses and let newcomers get the new houses?
Mr. Blyton: That is a question for my hon. Friends to fight out among themselves. I am saying that we must get houses built in the colliery villages if we wish to encourage recruits. The question of men already resident in the mining areas is a matter for the local authorities. But the men who come into the industry are not regarded by the local authorities as residents, and they find it impossible to get on the housing lists. My hon. Friend will find that happens in Wallsend as well as other places on Tyneside.
I was endeavouring to develop my point about the building up the mining industry. Everyone who has worked in the industry knows that when a lad of 14 goes through every grade he becomes, at the age of 22 or 23, a fully-fledged miner, and that there is a long career before him. Just lately there have been many parlour critics of the mining community over the question of Italian labour. I see that Mr. Byers, who was not a political force when he was in the House, and who is now trying to make himself a national figure, has been attacking the miners on this issue.
I would say to him that, by trying to force the miners' lodges to take Italian labour, we would have lost more coal than the Italians could have produced in 12 months. The miners would not have them. Unpleasant as it may seem to many who do not understand the colliery villages, the British miner believes that the mining industry should be built up with British labour and not with foreign labour. The lodges would not take them. Therefore I am pleased that this question, which has caused such heartaches among some hon. Members, who were either for or against Italians, has now been resolved.
If I introduce a discordant note into the debate I hope I shall be excused, but I wish to refer to the ladder plan. I have no word or criticism against the ladder plan. It enables many young men to get to college, where they may get a technical education and be equipped with the best
948
technical knowledge of the industry, and it is a great incentive. But there is a class of men, I would say to the Minister, who have been forgotten, and who are known as the forgotten men. Selectors of managers, when they are appointing colliery managers, are now inclined to take men with the old school tie who have a college degree. Men who have graduated through every stage of mining, and who have burned the midnight oil in study to get a first-class certificate, have not a chance of getting a manager's job in competition with men from the colleges who have a degree.
I know of three cases where such lads applied for jobs as colliery managers. They had gone right through the mining industry. They told me three weeks before the appointments who would get them, and when the appointments were made the people named received the jobs. These men who failed to get the jobs are now labouring under a sense of frustration. They feel that all their efforts to equip themselves are of no avail. They are met with the fact that they cannot get a job as a manager because they have not a Bachelor of Science Degree. As a former miner, I say that the best managers I ever met were men who had graduated from the bottom to the colliery office, and if a man is good enough to get a first-class certificate he ought to have some share in the managerial posts which become vacant. I say that in no disparaging sense, but merely to urge that these men who have studied should at least get a chance of a managerial post in the British mining industry.
There is the question of safety. The problem facing us is how can we—and I mean the mining community as a whole, the Government and the Opposition—with intensified mining, particularly in modern pits, prevent the occurrence of disasters such as those which occurred at Creswell and Easington last year. We have to discover, in circumstances of intensified mining, how we can make our pits safe and prevent the occurrence of disasters such as those which took place in the most modern pits in the country. I hope that the Minister will support any research designed to prevent things like that occurring again.
There are rumours that the development of British mining is being slowed down by capital expenditure cuts. It is

949
also said that developments are being held up, because of the shortage of necessary raw materials. If we are to carry out the N.C.B. schedule, there cannot be any curtailment in the development of our pits. If we slow down development today we shall suffer in the future so far as our mining is concerned.
I know there is a gap of 24 million tons of coal in Europe which has been met by imports from America, and I believe that next year, apart from this gap, the British mining industry will have to meet competition from Germany and from Poland. It is because I fear that competition that I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in his fuel efficiency drive. I want to see a greater output from the mines if that is possible. If we get a bigger surplus and maintain our traditional markets in Denmark, Holland, Italy and Argentine, they will put us in a stronger position. Whenever this competition which I expect from these two countries shows itself, we shall be in the strong position of having our traditional markets so that we can maintain full employment in our pits.
I know that the O.E.E.C. has asked for a 3¼ per cent. increase in production of coal on the 1951 figures for Western Europe. The Saar and the Netherlands are below that because of strikes. We are ¼per cent. below that figure because of the ending of weekend work during the summer. It is possible that by the end of the year we shall find that this 3¼ per cent. increase has not been obtained.
But the facts are that in Western Europe, of which we are part, we must make every endeavour to close the gap and to dispense with the import of 24 million tons of American coal. Secondly, we must see that our traditional markets are supplied by the export of our coal to ensure that whatever competition comes against the mining industry in the international field next year we shall be in a strong position to meet it.
My last point is that in the international field we have always said that we should work in close liaison with the European coal and steel community. In fact, we went further and said that whenever it was set up we should be prepared to make international agreements on capital expenditure, questions of markets, prices and wages. We are not prepared
950
to accept its political aims but we agree with its economic aims. As the political authority is now to be set up in the Council of Europe, I should like to ask the Minister what part the Government intend to play and what is the nature of their close liaison, as they call it, to be with the British mining industry and the community for coal and steel in Europe during the next 12 months. We cannot agree that they should control our economy by controlling our steel and coal industry, but the economic aim should be quickly examined on lines indicated to prevent the competition we knew years ago which ruined our exporting counties.
All this problem revolves round the British coal industry. I am confident that the National Coal Board which has done a brilliant job since 1947 can face the European problems if it has the united support of this nation. I, for one, wish it luck in its endeavours.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. Rupert Speir: Not having the intimate knowledge of the coal industry, or indeed of any other aspect of the fuel industry, which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has, I hesitated to intervene in the deliberations of the Committee. I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Member will understand if I do not follow him in all points which he has made. I agree with him that the atmosphere in this Committee has been both co-operative and friendly. I found little to quarrel with in what he said, whether it was in regard to safety in the mines, the need for exports, or the need for better housing conditions for the pitmen. I am sure that I shall have many other opportunities of discussing with the hon. Gentleman those minor aspects about which we might disagree.
My reason for seeking to intervene in this debate is because the policy of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, or the actions of the National Coal Board, can have, and indeed are having, a grave effect on the interests and on the livelihood of my constituents. Many people regard the Hexham Division as an entirely rural area. It is true that agriculture plays by far the predominant part in the life of that area. The fact remains, however, that there are no fewer than 20 mines within the boundaries of the

951
division, although many of them are very small indeed. Many of them too are now threatened with closure.
That is one of the reasons why I sought to intervene. I should like to ask the Minister to do his best to impress upon the National Coal Board the great importance to that locality of giving adequate notice of any intention to close down any of the pits in that area. I do not suggest for one minute that the National Coal Board are blameworthy on this question of closing down pits. Facts must be faced. Many of these pits are just about worked out and obviously the skilled men can be used to better effect elsewhere. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to understand, as no doubt he does, the grave effect it has upon an area when a pit is closed down.
I ask the Minister to urge the Coal Board to look ahead and to announce their plans well in advance so that people in the locality may plan accordingly. They will find that my constituents are adopting a sensible and realistic attitude about the necessity for closing down these pits. They will find them understanding provided they are given sufficient notice.
The fact that many of the pits in the north east, both in Northumberland and Durham, are getting worked out means that in that area the problem which faces the Coal Board is not one of recruitment but rather one of the redundancy of workers. I should like to make a suggestion. It has been reliably reported that in the north east there are many more boys applying for work in the pits than the number which can now be absorbed.
I am told that at the end of the term boys who leave school and seek employment in the mines are turned away. It seems to me that here are just some of the recruits which the National Coal Board want and should acquire. I do not believe that it would be possible to find better recruits.
Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman says that mines in the north east are turning away prospective recruits. Can he tell us which mines are doing that?
Mr. Speir: I am afraid that I cannot inform the hon. Member about the actual mines in question, but I am told that in the whole of the north-eastern
952
area it is a fact that boys who would like to go into the mining profession are not being taken on by the Coal Board who say that they have not got the vacancies. I suggest that we could not possibly get better recruits than these young boys from the north east.
The Minister told us this afternoon that the National Coal Board was conducting a vigorous recruiting campaign. If what I have said is true, and I believe that it is, then the Board are not using their imagination as much as we should like. I suggest that special training schools should be set up in the north east to take on all these possible recruits. I am sure that once these boys have reached manhood, once they have been properly trained and have acquired experience, their parents will be prepared to see them move into the Midlands or elsewhere. Naturally, the parents do not want to lose them at the age of 15 or 16. I believe that by training these boys in the north-east, by setting up special schools if necessary, much could be done to help in this problem of recruiting for the mines. We need not really worry about recruiting foreign labour when we have got the best possible kind of recruit on our own doorsteps.
In our present difficult economic position, we can take a certain amount of encouragement from the fact that, in regard to the fundamentals of our economic situation, there is agreement on all sides of the Committee. For instance, I think we are all agreed about the desirability, indeed the absolute necessity, of growing the absolute maximum amount possible of food, here at home. I think we are also agreed about the undesirability of importing coal into this country. It is the one raw material which we have in abundance, and not only does the importation of coal require dollars and shipping space, but it is also a grave blow to our prestige. It is, indeed, a terrible indictment of post-war Britain, that we should have had to import coal into this country from America, and I am sure we are all glad that that importation has now been stopped.
Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman is not unaware altogether, I am sure, that this is not the first time that American coal has had to be imported into the United Kingdom. It was imported in

953
1920, when there was a shortage of coal, and it was imported again in 1926, to help to break the strike.
Mr. Speir: Whatever the reasons for it, I think we should regret it. I personally regret it very much, and I am glad that the importing of coal from America has now been stopped.
I think also that most people will agree that it is a terrible indictment of postwar Britain that, seven years after the end of the war, we should still be conducting opencast coal mining operations at full blast. I am very sorry indeed to gather from the remarks of the Minister today that we are, apparently, going to continue going all out in regard to opencast mining operations again next year. I think it is distressing in the extreme to find that, this year, opencast mining operations are continuing at an even greater rate than they were last year. For instance, this year it is estimated that we shall get more than 10 million tons of coal by this terrible method. We all appreciate the need for coal today, both for industry and for export. [Laughter.] I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should think this a laughing matter, because his own area is vitally affected by opencast mining.
Mr. Robens: A few moments ago I heard the hon. Gentlemen complaining that we had to import coal from America. Does he not realise that, if we had not opencast coal, we should be importing American coal the whole time, and that, if we stopped opencast mining, we should have to have coal from America in place of the opencast coal which we shall get in the next five or six years?
Mr. Speir: I do not altogether accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would like to say that it might well be better for this country to import coal from America rather than go on with these opencast mining operations. I realise the need for coal, both for industry and for export, but there are limits, and I hope that the Minister will put an end at the very earliest opportunity to this horrible method of raising coal, and that he will not allow either himself or his Department to become complacent in any way about it.
For one reason, I suggest that these opencast sites ought to be earmarked
954
and reserved for use in a really disastrous situation—one of the utmost extremity. How can the Government expect the agricultural community to take seriously their desire for the maximum production of food at home when some of the most fertile land in the country is being destroyed, or threatened with destruction, by opencast operations? It is utterly useless to say that the top soil can be restored, and that the land would be as good as ever it was. That just is not true. And what about the drains, ditches, hedges and the fertility of the soil itself? Undesirable though it would be, and I admit it would be highly undesirable, it might even be a better proposition to import coal rather than to go on with these opencast mining operations on good agricultural land.
Let us remember that much of the machinery which is being employed for these opencast mining operations is coming from America. It is extremely expensive machinery, and it is using up a great many of our scarce dollars. Of course, there are other considerations such as the fact that the coal obtained by by this method is of low calorific value, and that the country lanes along which it has to be transported are quite unsuitable for this heavy traffic.
It is quite true that the arguments which can be put forward on the vital need of coal both for export and for industry are most impressive, but we should be more impressed by these arguments if there was clearer evidence of greater efficiency in the use of coal by industry as well as by the Government, and evidence of less waste of coal both by industry and the Government.
It is here that the Government themselves could set a better example and one not confined to actual Government Departments, but extending also to British Railways and to the National Coal Board itself. Certainly, we have not had much so far in the way of Government encouragement in this direction, and it is, above all, necessary that the Government themselves should set an example both in regard to economy of fuel and efficiency in its use.
In my concluding remarks, may I say a word or two by way of adding a tribute to those which have already been paid, to the miners of Britain? The Minister

955
himself said that the miners are the last people to want fulsome praise, but I still do not believe that their work has yet been fully appreciated by the nation, and they certainly have proved that they have fully earned and merited the bouquets which they have received.
Nevertheless, I do not think the majority of the nation realises how hard is the lot of the miner, nor, in many ways, how bad his conditions still are. Sir Andrew Brian, who is now a member of the National Coal Board, but who was a Commissioner at the time of the Creswell inquiry, speaking on this subject, said:
"The miner's environment is the hardest in the industrial world; for, excluding the fatal and serious injuries that overtake one out of every 300 miners each year, the average miner spends eight days a year away recovering from some pit injury. The figures for 1950 showed that the equivalent of 23,000 of our miners are permanently away from work recovering from accidents in the pit."
I was very glad to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) emphasise the desirability of continuing to take a real interest in improvements in regard to safety measures in the mines, because the truth is that there is still too much needless blood on the coal. I do not think it is sufficiently well-known by the people of this country that British miners are still only getting one week's holiday a year. Surely, if anyone earns a holiday, it is the miner, who is shut away from the light of the sun?
If any workers in Britain deserve 14 days' continuous holiday, it surely is the miners, who toil beneath the earth's surface. Let all those engaged in British industry—and it is the vast majority of them—who will soon be getting away for more than seven days' holiday realise and appreciate how much better off than the miner they actually are. The truth is that conditions for the miner could be, and should be, still better than they are at the present time. I am also glad that the Minister said that the National Coal Board are to take a continuing interest in meeting the housing needs of the men. I agree with the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring in stressing the importance of good housing conditions.
Our fuel position is not insoluble, but its solution requires a greater sense of
956
urgency on the part of both the producer and of the consumer.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: In intervening in this debate I feel it is like making acquaintance again with the Minister of Fuel and Power, for some years ago we had some contact when he was exploring the coalfields of Northumberland. It is a pity that he did not stay longer in the Department because, had he been able to carry out in the industry the sentiments he expressed to me on the occasion when I took him into the worst possible place I could find, the industry would have been much more enlightened than it was after he left office.
It seemed to me today listening to the Minister that again his close connection with the industry has brought some revealing matters to his mind, because he is a much different person today than he was when in opposition. Where has the acid gone? Where is the acid he used on the barbs he threw at us when he was in opposition? When he was throwing those barbs, the then Minister and the National Coal Board were doing a splendid job, and I want the present Minister to realise that he is the inheritor.
Now he has come to office and although there is much to be done, a tremendous amount which it was necessary to do has been done towards making a success of fuel and power. One of the most important things to be done was to break down the traditions, the ill-use, the extravagance and lack of decency in the coal industry before the mines were nationalised. In my view, the nationalisation of the mines saved Britain. When we nationalised the mines we saved Britain and the Empire because, unless Britain stands, the whole Commonwealth would not be able to stand.
Today I am concerned because there are still many things to be done. We have to bring confidence to the men in the industry. One of the great problems in this industry, as in other nationalised industries, is to make known to those on the ground floor the intentions of those in control of the industry. An hon. Member spoke of the lines of communication which appeared to break between the Board and the coal face. There are a lot of people between the Board and the

957
face, but when we are debating this industry we are apt to think that there is only one man who matters in mining, the man at the face. He is very important because we should not get any coal if he were not there. But we must remember the man working on transport and hauling, the man doing repair work and a whole lot of men without whom the man at the face could not get the coal. I am concerned that what the Board intend to do with their conciliation machinery and the steps they intend to take to develop the industry should percolate to the men in order that they may understand what is being done and why it is being done.
I am pleased to know that recruitment has improved. There are two ways in which recruitment to the mines can improve. One is by ensuring that there is confidence in the industry and the feeling that it is a worthwhile job, and not a dead-end job. We have to give parents confidence that when their boy goes into the industry he is entering on a job he can follow throughout his lifetime and that he will receive wages and consideration in the way of compensation, if he needs it, which are satisfactory. This must be instilled in the mothers: it is not so much the fathers who matter when a boy goes into the pits. Very often the father says, "My son will not have to go through what I have been through." If the mother can be confident that her boy is going into a worthwhile job, we shall be more likely to get him as a recruit for the industry.
I wonder whether there is another reason why recruiting has improved. About the most skilful thing the Government have done is to bring confusion into the steel industry and the transport industry over the matter of de-nationalisation. I wonder whether recruiting for the mining industry has been improved because they said they were not going to de-nationalise coal. Both these reasons may have been contributory factors in the improvement of recruitment.
A matter to which the Minister referred and about which a lot could be said is that we had recruiting campaigns during the war. We got many thousands into the pits, but they went away again. It is a mistake to think that we shall increase output immediately if we get a lot of men into the pits. In those days the term
958
which was used was "green labour." Green labour does not produce coal. Any miner knows that when a miner's son goes into the pit he goes into an atmosphere which he already knows. He has heard his parents and his uncles talking about the pits until he is practically a miner when he starts work, and he is far ahead of others from outside. I do not deprecate anyone wanting to come into the mines if he is of suitable age. There is a worthwhile job for him to do. His efforts will be appreciated, and there is no job in which a man helps his country more today than if he works in the mines.
In contradistinction to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), I am pleased about the arrangements made for advancement in the mines. Many of us who have known the coal industry for a long time have watched the measure of men who have been brought into the management. In the company with which I was connected, men were trained to become managers and some of them were very successful in that job. But I want the Coal Board—and I think they have started to do this already—to give the skilled man, the right man who not only knows how to get coal but also how to handle men, the opportunity to rise to the top. The old coal owners never did that.
In my own county, and maybe in Durham—I do not know much about that county, but I like the men who come from there—very few men rose to be agents. I know of many who rose to be managers or under-managers or over-men, but I want those men who have the ability to have the opportunity to rise to the very top. Mention was made in this debate of the number of directors in the coal industry who were dispensed with when the industry was nationalised, as compared with the different practice in the gas industry. The Reid Report did not say much about being unable to dispense with some directors. It said a great deal about mining engineers and said that there was a great dearth of them. Some of the directors were not worth their salt at all. We are concerned about the mining engineer and we want every encouragement to be given to him.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) spoke about the closing of some of the mines in his constituency. I spent

959
19 years in Hexham and I was there when three pits were closed. Two of those pits still contained any amount of coal. One pit, which had cost £250,000 to sink, commenced operations in 1917 and was closed in 1931 entirely because of bad management. Another pit with 3½ miles of coal still to be exploited was also closed because of bad management in that there was no spare part for a pump and when the pump stopped working the coal was lost. Pits in Hexham have been worked out and if it had not been for nationalisation men in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham, whom I knew well and who knew me well, probably would be travelling far today to seek work. But the nationalised industry is carrying on until a new drift mine has been driven and is operating.
The Minister should tell the people that while the Coal Board are doing a good job of work in establishing new drifts and providing new mines, and with machinery increasing the output of certain pits, a number of most inefficient pits are carrying on. It is almost impossible to make them efficient. It may well be that when the new drift in Northumberland starts operating, there will not be big production at first. We shall have lost the coal from mines in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham and the expected increase in total production will have been retarded for a time.
I should like to say a few words about housing. When the Minister of Defence came back from Korea, he said—though I may not be quoting him quite correctly—that he would have been much happier if a certain general had had more reserves on hand. Neither industry nor the Armed Forces can work without adequate reserves. The best reserve that the Minister of Fuel and Power possesses is the miner's wife. She stands behind her husband. No women in this land have been treated as badly as my Northumberland womenfolk have been treated. The old coal owners of this country should think shame of themselves that they condemned our women to live as they did in the houses provided for the miners. They had to rear their families in those conditions. They had to dry clothes over the fire so that the men could go to work next day.
960
In one district which I know, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) knows well, 3,000 to 4,000 people shared 15 standards from which they carried water. The women had to wait a couple of hours sometimes for a bucketful of water. The houses had just one entrance. The owners were too mean to put a door on the other side; and it was not as if the owners did not have the land, for they had bought the land to save the cost of subsidence.
I want the Minister to give the Coal Board all the assistance that he can in housing the miners. I thank God for the Coal Board, because we are now having a start made on providing homes. We are now promised that we shall have water supplied to the houses—not hot and cold water, of course; that would be too big a jump at once—and we are not to have baths provided, for the old men are not used to them in those houses. Therefore, we are going step by step, and we are going to get cold water. The Coal Board are going to remove the open channel which runs 150 or 200 yards down the street, where the woman at the top puts her slops in and the next does likewise, and so on all the way down. This is a five-year plan. We have got to have patience. I mention this to show what the Coal Board have inherited. Nationalisation saved this country, and if we go on as we are, it will probably save our self-respect.
6.31 p.m.
Mr. Victor Raikes: This debate has certainly been a very peaceful and friendly one, but I think that in passing I ought to say that to me any fuel debate which no longer has the presence of Lord Bracken, as he now is, loses a certain amount of brightness and entertainment. This is the first fuel debate that we have had in this Parliament. We all regret the reason why Lord Bracken is no longer with us on such occasions.
This evening it seems that on both sides of the Committee we are agreed on a large number of matters. I am not going to be drawn by the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) into old arguments on nationalisation—
Mr. R. J. Taylor: If I mentioned any of the old arguments, they are no worse for that, are they?
Mr. Raikes: I said that I was not going to be drawn into the old arguments, because, since on both sides of the Committee we are determined to try to make the Coal Board a success, it would seem to me to be a little unprofitable to begin to go back into some of those old arguments. We are faced by certain problems which allow no complacency on the part of any Minister, on whatever side of the Committee he may be, and unless during the next few years we can speed up and improve our exports position, we may fail to make up for the losses which we have incurred.
I should like to say a few words on the question of opencast mining, because I am not in agreement with the views which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir). First and foremost, increased production and fuel efficiency have got to move forward hand in hand. Both are vital to our industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has done a very valuable service in regard to fuel economy, and I was glad to learn that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Rohens) had obviously read my hon. Friend's paper on the subject very closely. I regret very much that we have not got the Ridley Committee's Report, because it would be easier to go more fully into that question if we had the Report before us. If we can make one ton of coal do the work of two tons, it will mean not only a saving in coal but a saving in cost as well. We shall have to watch the position very closely in the years that lie ahead.
That brings me to the question of exports. The Minister said that he hopes to export about 11¼ million tons this year. There should be an improvement on that figure. But for the last year or two we have not been able to export nearly as much as we would have wished, and, as has been pointed out, it is a tragedy that nearly three-quarters of the American aid to Europe should be in terms of coal. In fact, if we go back a little into the past, we find that certain of the prophecies that were made four or five years ago have not been fulfilled.
The right hon. Member for Blyth himself will remember the original forecast of what would happen under the Marshall Plan and the amount of coal we hoped to export to Europe in the years between 1948 and 1951. The forecast which was
962
then made aimed at the possibility of an export of 40 million tons of coal by 1951. If that could have been achieved, the whole economic situation of this country would have been altered.
In the course of the next two or three years, although I believe we can get a considerable increase in output, the immediate increase in output of deep-mined coal will depend upon the rate of capital development. I am inclined to think that capital development has perhaps lagged a bit, and it must be speeded up. But we shall not get that at once. France and Western Germany are increasing their coal production year by year and at the same time reducing costs. The costs in this country have tended to go up a little bit. I am not saying that we are not selling a little more cheaply in Europe than any other Western country; we are, but the gap is narrowing as France and Western Germany get back into full production. There is a tendency that we shall lose certain of our markets unless we can take steps to speed up our production in the next year or two.
That brings me to the question of opencast mining. Suppose that the Minister gets his full drive of capital development in 1952, 1953 and 1954. It may well be that we shall not get the full effect of that in increased production for another two or three years. I think that we shall probably produce 214 million tons this year, but we may not have a great deal to export. Opencast mining, in my view, has still a part to play. I know the objections to opencast mining. It means that good agricultural land is spoiled and that the scenery become unsightly. It also means in certain places that there is a very small return for the maximum of mess.
On the other hand, there are some areas in this country where opencast production has paid a dividend. Whatever people may say about the top-soil and so on, the fact remains that under this scheme at Wentworth we get a bigger return than we did before the scheme began. If I were in my right hon. Friend's position, I should consider whether in the good areas for opencast mining, where we can get a good return, it might be worth while to try to step up production for another two or three years by another 5 million tons a year, and then to taper it right off—to make use of it

963
now, but get rid of it as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so.
It is no good talking in terms of its being better to import American coal than to carry out opencast operations. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, it is not. If it were not for opencast mining, we should not be in a position to export one ton of coal. We are producing an average of between 10 million and 11 million tons of opencast coal per year. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Coal Board make use of it in the area where it can best be produced—South Yorkshire—and ship it for two or three years, I think we shall be able to cease this kind of operation and get back to the production of entirely deep-mined coal. In the meantime I do not want to see us lose those export markets. That is why I make that particular plea and stand by it.
In two or three years, particularly if the Minister and the Coal Board keep in close co-operation with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster—though he and I sometimes differ very violently on many matters, I am on his side on this question of fuel economy—we shall be able to do something towards tackling the question of costs.
I ask the Minister to watch very closely one or two matters affecting the National Coal Board. For example, he should watch the ratio between industrial and non-industrial workers. It is really important that the National Coal Board should not in any way raise costs by having too many clerks or non-industrial workers in any particular sphere of their activity, because the trend of costs is not a very helpful one at the moment, when this country is compared with France and Western Germany.
I appreciated the speech which was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). He said that he had seen a certain amount of weakness on the bureaucratic side within the Coal Board, and he went on to say quite frankly that he was very concerned that the Coal Board should be non-bureaucratic. His view was that the Coal Board could show that nationalisation can work. It is our task, also, to be careful that the Coal Board is not bureaucratic and to consider how far it can safely decentralise itself in the interests of the nation as a whole.
964
I know that the Minister's difficulties are very great, but it may be that if this particular Government can bring the safety provisions up-to-date, the Minister may inscribe his name more prominently in the annals of the coal industry. In the words of a Prime Minister, now dead:
"Whoever has office has opportunity, and opportunity is always power."
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: I should like to deal for a moment or two with the question of domestic supplies of coal in the City of Birmingham, of which the Minister, as well as myself, is a representative. It is a pleasure to have listened to this debate, and especially to have heard the Minister lead off by praising the miners. For too long the miners have been attacked by people who know nothing of the lives they lead and the suffering about which we have heard.
I do not want to go into the question of productivity, the condition of the mines, the housing of miners, or manpower. Many years ago, in my teens, I was carrying coal from this country to foreign countries and, strange to say, when I came ashore—still as a young man—my first job was in one of the deepest pits in South Wales. From the few months I was there, and the conditions in which I had to live, I can say that if I had carried on I should not have produced much coal. The miners deserve all the praise which has been given to them. Whatever was said by hon. Members opposite when they were in Opposition and when we were passing the Bill to nationalise the mines, there is no doubt that we were right.
It is true that the Minister has taken over something which is now getting past its teething troubles, and it is also true that the miners would not be carrying on as they are today if they had to work under the old conditions and we had not nationalised the mines. The public were never told why there was a shortage of coal after the war. They never realised that the conditions in which the miners lived and the treatment they suffered in pre-war days were the reasons why, immediately after the war, young men were not going down the pits when the time came for the older men to retire and the young men to replace them. They went

965
into other industries, and so we were short of manpower in the mines.
Today we can see the results of better treatment, and it is nice to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about 14 days' holiday for the miners, although I think they deserve even more than that. We knew very little about merchant seamen until the First World War, but when the submarine menace came we began to value them. It is only now, when we have had this shortage of coal in the years since the war and when we have had a freeze-up, that we realise the value of the miners. I hope that the public will realise that the miners are doing a good job, which is essential to our welfare, and that never again will the miners have to return to the conditions of the bad old days before the war.
I was unfortunately involved in the great General Strike of 1926. In those days I was in the Civil Service and, owing to my little knowledge of conditions in South Wales—and the Minister remembers all about this—I spoke my mind perhaps a little too freely and landed myself behind closed doors. I know something of what the miners went through in those days. I am pleased to know that a debate such as we have had today has been agreeable to both sides of the Committee and that instead of attacks on the miners we have been told something in their favour. I hope that a breath of fresh air will reach miners up and down the country when they read the reports of today's debate.
In his speech in the City of Birmingham on Saturday, the Minister was urging people to stock coal for the winter—
Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) says "Hear, hear"—
Mr. Nabarro: I have bought mine.
Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member has bought his because, very likely, he lives in a house with a big cellar; but let him come to some of the back streets of the city which I represent—to the Deritend area.
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must not carry this too far because,
966
as he knows, some of the worst houses in Birmingham have one good quality, which is that they have some very good coal cellars—at any rate in all the central areas.
Mr. Shurmer: I am afraid that the Minister is not quite stating the facts about some of the houses with good cellars. I will take him around this weekend, if he likes to come, and we shall not find some of those good cellars in the Bilsall Heath area. I am not quarrelling with the Minister for doing exactly what his predecessor did last year—asking the people to stock coal for the winter. That is all very well, but not everybody has the money to buy the coal for stocking, nor has everybody the accommodation in which to stock it. I speak only for Birmingham, and others can speak for the other great cities. The Minister knows quite well that in Birmingham thousands of people are living in rooms and are unable to stock coal. Those people depend on the little coal yards in the central areas of the city.
In the winter, when we have a cold snap, as we did last year, the question is asked, "Why did not the people buy coal when they had the chance to stock it?" But it is no good telling people to stock coal if they have no accommodation in which to stock it. It was sad to see people queueing up by the hundreds to buy small bags of coke, or bringing perambulators or push-chairs in which to take away the small quantities of coke—perhaps a quarter of a hundredweight—which the merchants could afford to give them when the rush for coal took place during the cold spell.
The Minister has urged people to stock coal, and people like the hon. Member for Kidderminster, people in the better parts of Birmingham, have the accommodation and also the cash to be able to do so—and, indeed, they can get the coal when it is in short supply; they know where to get it even then.
Mr. Nabarro: What about the hon. Member's cellar?
Mr. Shurmer: My allocation comes in the same way as that of any other member of the Co-operative society, of which I am a member, in Birmingham. The Minister can come to my house—he knows where I live—and can see how

967
much coal I have in my cellar. I hope the Minister will see that, whatever the weather, these small coal merchants in the central areas of Birmingham get their fair share of coal so that they can be ready in an emergency, when the cold snap comes and when those who have managed on a little bit of coal want a little extra.
We have heard a good deal about opencast coal, and I agree that we have to have it, but Birmingham has been having a very large share of opencast coal, as the Minister knows only too well. There has been a lot of grumbling about it. Why cannot other parts of the country have their fair share of opencast coal? Why should it be pushed on to Birmingham? I hope the Minister will see that under the new arrangement—I understand he is still to give Birmingham 10 per cent. of opencast coal—
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's party gave nearer 20 per cent.
Mr. Shurmer: Never mind what we gave; the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to give less. What has happened in the past will not help in the future. Not only the smaller merchants, but the large merchants, are grumbling about even the 10 per cent. I hope the Minister will give us our fair share of decent coal and not give us a great percentage of opencast coal simply because it is produced in the area. It is not fair that we should have all these brickbats and all the rubbish which comes along; other parts of the country should have their share.
In conclusion, I want to pay a tribute to the Minister for the mild way in which he spoke today and for his references to the miners and to the industry generally. I feel confident that he must give credit to the Government which nationalised the mines and gave him this opportunity of carrying on the good work. Whatever may be his success, he must be grateful for the nationalisation of the mines by a Labour Government. I hope that during the winter months he will spend much of his time in Birmingham, as one of the city representatives, and not only in the district which he represents, because he represents a very good-class district in Birmingham, where people have plenty of cellars and plenty of opportunity to
968
stock coal. I hope he will see that during the winter months Birmingham gets a fair share of coal in the central areas, and that it is good coal and not opencast coal.
6.56 p.m.
Sir Arnold Gridley: Like all back benchers who have spoken so far today, I think it is most extraordinary that we are in such a friendly frame of mind, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on setting a very good tone in his opening speech. I am sure everyone who heard the Minister of Fuel and Power speak and give us his survey, listened with fascinated interest to the story he had to unfold.
I intervene for a few moments to say something about nationalised electricity, because I am more than a little worried about the present situation in that industry. In order that I may not be considered a humbug, I will, if I may, read a brief extract from a speech which I made on the Third Reading of the Electricity Act in 1947, when I said this:
"While I think that nationalisation is a mistake, and that if it had to be, it could have been carried through under a far sounder and more wisely constructed Bill than this, I do not wish to see this great industry, which has rendered such magnificent service to British industry in the past, failing to repeat or enhance those services in the future. I can only hope—as I profoundly do—that in the years that remain to me I shall not see it fail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1947; Vol. 439. c. 1005.]
I felt compelled to say that at the time, having been in the industry for half-a-century and being turned out by nationalisation. Today I am worried about the industry, and I am not alone in being worried. I believe that members of the British Electricity Authority are concerned, as I know are some of the chairmen of the area boards, that so far this year, and particularly in recent months, the anticipated increase in consumption, which has occurred year by year for many years past, is not being achieved. In other words, there is a falling in the rate of growth of consumption of electricity.
I think that is due to three reasons. In the first place, as we all know, in some industries there has been some recession in trade. There are other industries which have lost confidence in the electricity industry because of the many power cuts which have taken place

969
in the past, and which, thank heaven, were fewer last winter—and I hope they will be fewer still next winter. But there is a third reason which I think is an unfortunate one. Statements are being made and spread about the country condemning the use of electricity for cooking, water heating and air heating.
I think we are all agreed that the electricity industry is vital to our prosperity, and we must hope that this recession in the consumption of electricity will be brought to an end and expansion encouraged again. In my view there is one obvious way of doing that—to do everything possible to provide for the area boards what is known as off-peak load. We all know now—we have heard sufficient about it from time to time—that there are certain peaks at the power stations. They are between eight o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning and between two o'clock and five o'clock or six o'clock in the afternoon in the winter months. Those peaks are very much smaller in the summer months. But there are deep valleys which require to be filled, if they can be filled, with load that does not add to the peak, and one way in which that load can be provided is by not discouraging the use of electricity for domestic and certain industrial purposes.
Unless this is done—and this is what is worrying the British Electricity Authority and the area boards—they will very soon be faced with this position: the anticipated revenues that are not now what they were expected to be; their capital expenditure is going on all the time; they have recently had to make an issue of capital at a higher rate of interest; if their revenue drops, or does not increase as it should do, all those expenses, some of them expanding, will be going on and they will be faced either with losses or with, what I am sure they would all regret, being forced to do—the raising of their prices still further, if they are to carry out their duties under the Act and make their balance sheets balance one year with another.
Sir William Darling: Has my hon. Friend given consideration to the recent development in the discontinuation of the use of electric power for traction purposes, notably here in the County of London? Has the authority, under his direction, or with his guidance, come to any conclusion about
970
that discontinuation of electric power, as compared with the use of imported fuel?
Sir A. Gridley: I am afraid I have not heard of this fact.
Sir W. Darling: The discontinuation of electric traction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Trams."]—throughout the country, and the use of imported fuel.
Sir A. Gridley: Personally, I hold the view that when trams are displaced trolley-buses should take their place, not petrol buses; and that would continue to pro— vide a load upon the power stations, of which the abolition of the tramways relieves them. However, I do not think that that is a subject with which I should proceed at the present time.
I want to make a plea. I think everyone knows, without my repeating it, that I have an interest in electrical development—not in electricity supply now, as I used, but in the manufacture of various types of electricity consuming machinery and apparatus. There is one type of apparatus the use of which should be in every way encouraged, and that is immersion heaters for providing hot water for the homes.
Mr. Shurmer: Taxed at 100 per cent. now.
Sir A. Gridley: Take it off. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell the Chancellor."] It is a remarkable fact that between 1939 and 1946 customers using space heating actually doubled. Well now, why was that?
Mr. Robens: Surely, the lack of domestic coal.
Sir A. Gridley: It was due to high prices and greatly restricted quantities. It was also due to the fact that it was difficult to get domestic help in households, because there was a shortage.
Sir W. Darling: No tax on appliances.
Sir A. Gridley: I understand that there is to be a committee to be set up to go into the whole question of Purchase Tax, and I think a very good case can be made out, and I hope that those who want to see our nationalised industries successful will support some reduction in that particular case.
What I complain about is this. The most extravagant statements are being

971
made that, for certain purposes, electricity should never be used; and not only should never be used, but that we should be prohibited from using it by legislation. There are some chairmen of new housing estates who are very worried about these statements that are being broadcast all over the country. They are asking themselves, "Well now, if it is not right, if it is not economically sound, to provide electricity supplies to our new housing estates, ought we not to say we will not spend the money in this direction? If so, where are our households to be when they want to enjoy themselves with the use of radio sets or television sets—or with the use of electricity for anything besides lighting in the houses?"
Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend give the Committee an example of any person with any knowledge of fuel and power who has ever suggested legislating against the use of electricity in any circumstances or conditions?
Sir A. Gridley: I think that if my hon. Friend will look at his own book he will see that there he suggests that, if necessary, legislative action should be taken to make it illegal to use electricity for certain purposes.
Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend please allow me? He is making a statement here which is exceedingly damaging. I have never in any circumstances written a statement of the sort that he has just made to the Committee. He has removed a sentence from its context. Perhaps he would get hold of a volume of the book and quote the precise passage, because I have no hesitation in saying that my hon. Friend is completely wrong.
Sir A. Gridley: There is one statement here:
"Electric cookers should be prohibited."
Prohibited. I do not know how one can prohibit other than by legislative action, by Order or by Regulation.
When I refer to these matters I would not for one moment have anyone believe that I am not every bit as much in favour of the sound, economical, practical, and most efficient use of coal wherever coal has to be burned. I remember the days when I first started in the electricity supply industry when we were burning—
972
what?-12 lb. of coal per unit generated I saw that in a very short time reduced to 5 lb.
I took on as assistant a young engineer from the sea, and put him in charge of a power house, and he very soon reduced the 5 lb. to 3 lb.—and that man rose to be the Chairman of the Central Electricity Board. He showed his skill and experience in those early years when we were gradually developing the industry. Now we have made so much further progress that I believe that in the most modern plant the Electricity Authority has got down to something below 1 lb. of coal per unit generated. So for heaven's sake do not let the Electricity Authority or industry be accused of not having made every effort during the years the industry has been gradually developing to use coal as efficiently as possible.
I would rather see coal being used very efficiently in that way than I would see coal being used in fire grates, however modern the appliance that may be obtained in these times. After all, power stations do use the most inferior coal that is now made available, and the more we go on with mechanisation of the mines—a process which we all want to see accelerated—there will be more of this small coal—"slack and duff," as it used to be called in my time—of which the power stations are practically the only possible users. That quantity is increasing. For domestic use and for coke manufacture superior coals of higher quality, and higher in price, must be provided for gas and coke-oven plants.
In making comparisons between the use of electricity and of coal in the home, what is left out of account between the relative amount of coal consumed in the grate and at the power station is the immense cost incurred in transporting coal from the pit-head, via the distributors of coal, until it eventually reaches the customer's cellar.
Again I need not remind the Committee of all the efforts made in recent years to bring about smoke abatement in this country. The pollution of the air with smoke from coal fires, whether through stacks or chimneys, costs this country millions of pounds every year, and every effort should be made, for economic reasons and health reasons, to reduce the volume of smoke that still

973
pollutes our atmosphere. I do not suppose there is a housewife who would not say that she much prefers to use electricity in her house because the amount that has to be spent from time to time on re-papering, re-decorating and re-painting is much less than when either gas or coal is used.
The area boards are worried, and the British Electricity Authority is getting very concerned. In reply to a Question a few weeks ago the Minister told me that by this winter there will be added to the power station capacity another 1,200,000 kilowatts of generating plant.
I put this question now to every hon. Member. Assume electricity had been developed before coal or gas had been discovered. Would anybody in their senses then advocate that people should burn coal in their houses, having to light fires, clean grates, take away the ashes, and all that sort of business, when they had to do nothing of the kind with electricity? Would they use gas for cooking or heating if they had had the experience of the cleanliness and convenience of electricity? The question has only to be posed to realise the answer, had we been so favoured in this world that our inventors had discovered electricity before we had made use of gas and coal, as we have done so extravagantly. The coal and gas industries would probably never have been developed, or if they had been developed it would have been for industrial purposes only.
In the interests of the nationalised industry, which I want to see prosper and serve the nation even better in the future than it has in the past, we must do everything possible to encourage the use of electricity for all purposes, and allow the consumer the service of his choice, whether it is coal, gas or electricity.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall endeavour to be brief, because I am sure we are all anxious to hear the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) go for his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley).
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) suggested that the fact that today we have a need for opencast coal and for imported American coal is a terrible indictment on the post-war years. It would be much more accurate to say that it was
974
a terrible indictment on the pre-war years, because it is a complete injustice, not only to the people who work in the industry but to anybody, in either Government, who has been responsible for administering it to suggest that the shortages and difficulties we have to face today, from which the need for imports or for opencast coal arises, spring from any act or omission in the post-war years.
Today we are reaping the harvest of errors and omissions of the pre-war years. It is a very great pity that the hon. Member for Hexham was not a Member before the war so that he could have urged upon hon. Members opposite in those days the virtues and merits of the mining communities and their need for a 14 days' holiday a year. If only that frame of mind had prevailed rather more widely, we might not have some of the difficulties that we face today.
Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend did endeavour to do all that, but hon. Gentlemen opposite prevented him.
Mr. Stewart: If I may say so, it seems rather a condemnation of the managers of the party opposite that they kept out the hon. Member for Hexham and allowed some others in.
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be unfair. I would remind him that those of us who did succeed in being here before the war know that it was that Government which introduced holidays with pay.
Mr. Stewart: I would not want to do an injustice to any Government of any party which did anything for the mining community. What I say is that it was the indifference on the part of the nation as a whole to the needs of the mining community, for which we are now paying very heavily. I appear to have injected rather more excitement into the debate than I had intended.
The making of the mining industry into one into which a sufficient number of men are prepared to go is still a serious problem, despite certain encouraging and optimistic figures which the Minister has given us, and I should therefore like to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on the question of housing for members of the mining community.

975
Although I come from a constituency in which there are no members of that community, I support that plea because the provision of housing for miners is not something which is of interest to the mining community alone. It is of interest to anybody who, directly or indirectly, consumes the product of that industry. We are all representatives of the consumers of coal, and I am thinking also of those workers in my constituency in the gas and electricity industries whose destinies are bound up with the state of the coal industry.
Another thing likely to have a good effect on recruitment to the industry is the proper development of existing plans for promotion within the industry. I cannot speak on matters affecting the coal mining industry with anything like the authority of many of my hon. Friends. but I notice from what they say and what I have gleaned from other sources that, although the men who work in the industry still, no doubt, have plenty of subjects of criticism, there is a general atmosphere of hope and good will, due partly to the steps taken to open promotion and advancement to men of ability in the industry.
I hope that will lead to similarly encouraging developments in the gas and electricity industries, because it should not be felt that because we have not had so acute a manpower problem in those industries we need not bother about providing for promotion on ability in those industries. We ought to set out in every nationalised industry to try to make the idea that it is the nation's industry a reality; that it is not only owned by the State and managed by a board, but that its public ownership means that the workers in it and the consumers of its products have a special interest in how the industry is run. I think I am right in saying that one of the specific subjects for which power is given to the Minister under the Acts is that he should give attention to the problems of promotion and advancement in the gas and electricity industries.
I mentioned that a nationalised industry is one in which the whole nation ought to take a real interest. Historians will read of our debate this afternoon with interest as this is, I think, the first occasion on which a Conservative Minister
976
had done his best—and a very good best it was—to defend the running of nationalised industries before the watchful eyes of a Labour Opposition.
There is a third party interested in the good running of nationalised industries besides the management and the workers in the industries—that is, the consumer. It is towards the position of the consumer in the gas and electricity industries that I particularly want to direct what I have to say. There are, of course, elaborate arrangements for the representation of consumer interests in those two industries. There are consultative councils in each of the areas under the gas and electricity authorities. At a lower level, there are the district committees and miscellaneous ways through which the consumer, if he is aware of them, is able to make his complaints, express his opinions, and, one hopes, make his constructive suggestions known. At present, although that machinery exists, it is used far too little and in far too haphazard a manner.
I want to make one or two suggestions as to how it may be used to better advantage. In the first place, I should like to remind the Minister of some very valuable remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) in a debate which took place on 30th May. It was quite a brief but interesting debate, and they dealt chiefly, I think, with the area consultative councils. They pointed out that the chairmen of these councils, which, after all, are mainly supposed to represent consumer interests, are in fact ipso facto members of the board, and it is doubtful if they can properly fulfil the two functions.
By making them members of the board, the board, which is apparently the body which should be subject to criticism and examination, casts its shadow over the consultative council, which ought to stand up to it. Again, the secretary of the consultative council is an employee of the Board. He may look for his avenues of further promotion to the board. It is doubtful whether he can, therefore, whole-heartedly help the consultative council in any job of vigorously criticising the board's policy. Then, sometimes, when the area boards are subjected to criticism by the consultative council, they may reply by

977
making use of this device which is commonly known as "blinding them with science"; that is to say, by producing a number of technical objections to what the consumer want done, which the consumers' representative is not technically capable of answering.
A man or a woman may be a very good representative of the consumers, and may know just where the shoe pinches if these gas and electricity industries are not properly run, and may be very competent to voice consumers' complaints, but may not know much about the technicalities of the industries. Therefore, I think that there ought to be a central board available to give technical advice to the members of the consultative councils.
So far, I have not done much more than underline what hon. Members suggested in the debate of 30th May. To carry the argument a little further, I would point out that below the area consultative councils there are the district committees, which more or less link up with the local authorities. I believe that link could be made a constructive and obvious one—that probably it would be best if the district committees were manned by members of the local authorities, chosen by their local authorities. I think that it might also be an advantage—there are arguments both ways—if the district committees, instead of meeting at the offices of the boards, met in the town halls. They often represent a group of local authorities, and they may have to rotate their meetings from one town hall to another, but what we want to create is a feeling among the citizens that they can go to their own town hall with their complaints about how the gas and electricity industries are run.
When one goes into the showrooms of the gas and electricity undertakings, one may find there a list of the members of the district committees, and, if one is fortunate, one may find not only their names but their addresses. In some, one may find a list of the names and perhaps the address of the secretary. In others one will find no information at all, but if one persists, by deligent inquiry one may be able to discover the name of the secretary of the district committee. I am sure that it should be the policy of the industry to do their best to make known to the public the names and addresses of
978
the members of the district committees. It would be a great advantage if everybody knew the person to whom he could go with a complaint about the way in which the gas or electricity industry is run—to Councillor So-and-so or to Alderman Someone-else, who possibly lives round the corner.
If we can create that atmosphere, perhaps in the first instance we may multiply the number of complaints, but after a time, when people become familiar with the machinery, what we should have would be, instead of a record of complaints and the official machinery turning over in a rather dreary and unfruitful manner, a steady flow of constructive and valuable criticism.
I think, too, that the employees whom we meet in gas and electricity showrooms should be encouraged to acquaint themselves with the kind of questions which they are likely to be asked by the public, so that they can answer them. I have had experience, and no doubt, other hon. Members have had similar experiences, of members of the public coming to us because they have gone to the gas or electricity showrooms with a question such as, "Can I have an electricity meter into which I can put sixpences as well as shillings?" and they have found not merely that the answer was "No," but that no one could tell them why the answer is "No." They probably would not mind the answer being "No" if there were a good reason for it and the reason were explained to them.
We often receive from the gas and electricity industries—perhaps "often" is an exaggeration, but from time to time—very beautiful brochures describing various aspects of the industries. I always read these with much interest, but I do sometimes wonder whether, if there were a little less rather elaborate public relations of that kind and a little more making sure that the girl in the showroom could answer a simple question from members of the public, we should not get a better relationship between the public and the industries.
Then, again, I think it might be an advantage if there were some talks and consultations between the members of the different consultative councils, both those from different areas and those from one industry joining with those of another by means of annual conferences, so that the

979
ways in which the different councils work and the different industries manage their consumer relations could be compared. It would have the advantage also of focusing a good deal of public attention on a matter which at present does not arouse the interest among the general public that it ought to arouse.
I would also suggest that the working of the whole scheme of consultative councils might come under the review of a Select Committee of this House. I realise that that is carrying the matter much wider, and I dare say it will occur to the Minister and other hon. Members opposite to say, "Why did you not put all these provisions in your Act when you nationalised the industry?" I know that some of my suggestions would mean amendment of the Act, but we ought to realise that it is now common ground among us that these industries are, and will remain, publicly owned.
It is common ground among a very great many of us that they ought to be publicly owned. Nobody any longer disputes that they should be publicly owned. We are all seeking the answer to the question: How can public ownership be most efficiently managed? The Opposition certainly are not going to commit themselves to the idea that the provisions of the Act as it was passed are infallible or permanent and unchangeable and can never be improved. I trust that the Minister will take a wide view of his duties—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman can press the need for legislation any further and yet remain in order.
Mr. Stewart: I shall pursue it no further, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I hope the Minister will. He should take a very wide view of his duties and interest himself in not only the technical problems of the industry but also the general problems of administration involved in running a nationalised industry.
I have suggested that the public at large have a great many complaints to make about the running of these industries, but I do not want to leave the impression that I am concerned only with opening the door to more complaints. What is really wanted is to turn ineffectual grumbles into constructive criticism, and if the machinery provided can be improved in this way I believe that it can
980
do just that thing. I certainly do not want to leave the impression that the public ought to be doing nothing but complain about these industries. We ought to realise that the very fact that they are nationalised means that anything that goes wrong with them or any rise in price that has to be made is immediately highlighted in the Press and in the eyes of public opinion.
We ought also to realise that if the goods and services provided by private enterprise had risen in price in recent years no more than have the goods and services provided by nationalised industries, the cost of living problem would be by no means as serious as it is today. That important fact ought to be remembered in connection with the criticisms which the public are entitled to make of the nationalised industries.
I also wanted to suggest—I trust I have not gone too far beyond the bounds of order in doing so—that, while in debates of this kind we naturally pay a great deal of attention to the administration of the industries and the problems of the workers in them, there is the further problem of effective representation of the consumer which can be turned into not merely a safety valve for grumblings and complaints but a valuable contribution to the efficient running of the nation's property.
7.34 p.m.
Colonel C. G. Lancaster: The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has maintained the high standard of today's debate. He offered a number of valuable suggestions, and I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him into the field with which he dealt.
The hon. Member remarked that this was something of an historic occasion as my right hon. Friend was defending the National Coal Board and the various industries we are discussing against the Labour Party. It is highly appropriate that my right hon. Friend should do that. At the same time I cannot but feel that it is our duty, so far as we can, to hold a reasonable balance between the things which have succeeded and the weaknesses which are showing themselves in various directions. If I adopt that attitude for a few minutes, it is with no other purpose than to suggest directions in which improvement can be sought, and not because I wish to indulge in any discussion of

981
the matter of nationalisation, which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said is not under review today.
As my right hon. Friend has said, there are a number of matters about which we can be satisfied. We have at this moment adequate stocks. It looks as if we will start the winter with 18 million or 19 million tons. We are improving our exports position. It was very satisfactory to hear that about 12 million tons will be going abroad this year. We have had considerable success in recruiting men into the industry, men of the right type—very often boys leaving school and, in the great majority of cases, boys coming from mining communities and mining families—but we should not overlook the fact that there continues to be rather excessive wastage between the ages of 21 and 30, and it will not be a very happy prospect for the industry unless we can tackle that problem.
From the point of view of production there are several satisfactory features. We have continued with mechanical experiments, and many of the experiments have reached a stage where they are giving very practical results. With regard to machinery, both the Meco-Moore cutter-loader and the Samson stripper have shown themselves to be first-class. We have recently set up a very useful liaison between this country and the United States whereby our technicians can keep abreast of developments in the great coalfields on the other side of the Atlantic, and recently my right hon. Friend turned the sod of a new pit as part of one of the new big developments.
Having mentioned all these satisfactory aspects I must, in fairness, look at the other side of the picture. It can be said that in the first six months of this year production is about 1 million tons up on last year, and that sounds a fairly satisfactory figure until we begin to analyse it. It represents an increase of only 1 per cent. Moreover, when we begin to break it down it does not look so satisfactory. About 800,000 tons of the 1 million tons comes from one area alone, the East Midlands area. Last year there was a dispute in the South Wales coalfield which resulted in a loss of 100,000 tons. In June this year we had Saturday work; we did not have it last year.
This means that the overwhelming proportion of the British coal mining industry has not produced a ton more in the
982
first six months of this year than it did last year, despite all the satisfactory matters to which reference has been made—added recruitment, more machinery, advance in technique and so on—front which we might have had the right to expect a more satisfactory result. Probably it would not matter a great deal that we were not making a more considerable advance if the rest of the world was standing still, but that is not the case. The whole of Western Europe is recovering, and recovering fast.
No one today has said that we are the only nation of any size in Western Europe which has not regained its pre-war output figures. There was a great deal of physical destruction throughout the Continent, in France, Germany, Belgium, to a lesser degree in Holland, certainly in Silesia, but each of those countries has got back to its pre-war figures, and one or two of them are beginning to exceed them. That may be all right for the moment when coal is in demand all over the world, but there will undoubtedly come a time when we shall have to return to highly competitive conditions and the demand for coal will be less. We shall be up against competition, certainly from the Ruhr and Silesia, and unless we can increase productivity over what we are showing at this moment we shall find ourselves in a pretty difficult position.
Some reference has been made to the amount of coal imports into Europe last year. I now want to put on record that the figure is not 26 million tons but 32 million tons; that between January, 1951, and January, 1952, 32 million tons of American coal were imported into Europe at a price of £250 million and, as hon. Members have said, that represents a very high proportion of Marshall Aid allocated to Europe. Under the circumstances it had to be, but it should not have to be a day longer than is necessary and our country, beyond all other countries, is the one which should be filling that gap. The great majority of that coal went into our traditional markets. After all, Italy, France, Belgium and Holland are our traditional markets which are being filled by American coal, and we do not want to see that continue one day longer than it has to.
Following on from that I want to speak for a moment or two about the level of development within the industry. It is

983
not altogether satisfactory. Some little while ago "The Times" pointed out that we were running at this moment at a level of about £29 million to £30 million a year in the type of normal development as distinct from major development projects such as the sinking of new pits. This money is being spent on the sort of things like shaft widening, washeries, surface reconstruction, underground haulage, introduction of trolley locos and the like, but when we come to analyse that figure we find that it is not as good as we were doing before the war. Then we were spending an average of £24 million to £25 million on that type of construction, and with the £ at its present value £30 million is no sort of advance on that pre-war figure.
I know there are reasons why we cannot spend all the money or install all the machinery we should wish to see put into this industry. Nevertheless, the present level of investment in the mining industry is disquieting. I say that because once again we want to get ourselves into a condition where we can meet the prospect of the sort of competition which inevitably is going to come our way within a reasonable period of time.
I go from there to the matter of costs. As has been already said, for the moment we can apparently afford to disregard costs. We have, in fact, gone up 2s. 2d. a ton in the first quarter and something beyond that in the second quarter of the year. As my hon. Friend rightly said, this is well below the cost of most of our continental competitors, but I want to put it to the Committee that it is impossible to have an efficient industry unless one is cost conscious. That is the beginning of efficiency. That and coal production are two things closely related. I know it was always a temptation in the old days to boost up production in certain circumstances and disregard cost. It never paid, and I hope that every sort of attention will be given now to that question of reducing costs where it is possible.
I have never taken the line that high wages are important in the sense that they can necessarily affect the cost of the product. They do not if production is at a high level. I know perfectly well that every sort of cost now has gone up, such as for machinery, equipment and
984
the like. It is bound to go on going up and showing this general trend which we had in the last five or six years unless we improve production. All the three matters I have mentioned are bound up one with the other. We have to have development, intensification of production and we have got to consider this question of costs.
Very little has been said today—and I think rightly so—about plans for coal. I produced one or two myself, but I have never suggested either in Parliament or out of it that what I have produced is necessarily the right answer or the only answer. What I am quite certain of is that we have not yet got a solution to this problem in the coal industry. Indeed, I often wonder if we ever will. It is the sort of thing that ought to go on being changed and altered year by year if need be. We have got to be empirical in our approach to this. We have got to have flexible and questing minds.
It is no good sitting back on a day like this and having Members on both sides of the Committee getting up and saying that everything is right and that there is nothing wrong with the industry. That is not so. If there was nothing wrong with the industry, what is the purpose of this debate? There are a whole lot of things right with it, but equally so there are a whole lot of things going wrong. I think these matters can be righted within the industry and the National Coal Board is the proper authority to correct them, but there is no harm in Members of Parliament or others who have enough experience giving the benefit of their views or how improvements may be applied.
From time to time I have made various suggestions which have been violently criticised by Members of Parliament and indeed by trade unionists in the mining industry. I do not resent that. They are perfectly entitled to criticise what I have said, but what I do say now is that it would be wrong if we sat back and accepted things as they are. There is a need for change. All my investigations have not been entirely impracticable. If there is one thing of which I am extremely proud it is that in the year 1928, when I started seriously taking part in the coal mining industry, I gathered together a team of men in one small pit. Eventually we grew to a

985
greater size, and by the time of nationalisation we were quite a large combine.
Those men were still with me in 1947, and now they have been spread about the industry throughout the length and breadth of the country and are managing 60 million tons of production. It is the biggest contribution to nationalisation that has occurred. I am very proud of it and of those young men who were brought up in the same approach to this problem which I myself had. Some of our ideas must certainly have been right and many of them have stood the test of experience.
I hope that the Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and those interested in this great industry will be insistent that we must go forward, if necessary with drastic changes. We must go on searching for the answer to this problem. We must not be complacent and satisfied. We have got to recognise that competition is coming to us and coming to us fast. If we are to survive and play our part in Western Europe and indeed in the world we have got to put this industry right and time is no longer on our side.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. John McKay: I have listened to the whole of this debate, and for a long time I imagined that those who spoke were making maiden speeches, because there was very little controversy. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who pointed out things which he said ought to be taken care of and controlled. Many of the things he mentioned have already been heeded.
I think everyone in the coal trade is aware of the difficulties. We are fully aware that in the near future we may have severe competition and that there is a need for greater output to meet the necessities of our own country. The things he mentioned depend entirely upon our ability to reduce coal costs by increasing output per man, and by organising the industry in various ways.
The hon. and gallant Member mentioned capital investments, and drew attention to the fact that before nationalisation the coalowners were investing more money per year in reconstruction schemes than the N.B.C. have been doing. I do
986
not know whether that is true, but probably it is. I am not disputing it for the moment. It does not follow that because we are investing more money we get the best results, unless we direct the capital efficiently. The history of the industry shows that, despite investment, output was doing down. That implied that there was not sufficient skill in the investments that were made.
Colonel Lancaster: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee. I was not trying to draw comparison between coalowners' control before the war and nationalisation. I was saying I was disturbed at the low level of investment in the industry now. In the decade before the war output went up steadily. Like many other people, I am disturbed that there is not the degree of capital investment in the industry that one would like to see.
Mr. McKay: I did not imply that the hon. and gallant Gentleman took that attitude, but he seemed to mean that the N.C.B. were not doing the job of investing capital in reconstruction as effectively as the coalowners were doing it before the war. Despite the extra investment output per man-shift went down from 1935, when it was 1.17 tons, until in 1938 it was 1.14 tons. The war intervened, and the output went down to 1.03 tons.
I want to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), with regard to the National Coal Board having to bear responsibility for the cost of importing American coal. I cannot understand that at all. What justification is there for putting the extra cost arising from the importation of American coal upon the N.C.B.? It is beyond my comprehension. If the industry had not been nationalised, the coalowners would not have borne any cost if American coal had had to be imported. Why should the N.C.B. do it? To the extent that the N.C.B. is penalised there is a penalty on the men who produce the coal. The N.C.B. should fight the battle out about this penalty which has been imposed upon them.
Mr. Jack Jones: What has happened in coal is also about to happen in steel. Because of the impor-

987
tation of American steel the cost is going up by £2 14s. a ton on the original price.
Mr. McKay: My hon. Friend knows more about steel than I do. It is up to him as the leader of the trade union movement to see that what has happened in the coal trade does not happen in steel.
Despite criticism of the National Coal Board during the last five years, I think most of us agree that it has done a marvellous piece of work. With its reconstruction schemes, however much one may criticise them, it is endeavouring to find out what can be done. New collieries are in the offing, and 61 drift mines are being prepared and 81 reconstruction schemes. Things are now moving in the coal industary. To the extent that the National Coal Board can foster a friendly relationship with the men in the industry there is every hope that things will improve.
I look upon the past as the dark ages for the miners and upon the present position as a renaissance for them. I do not say that everything in the garden is lovely. Far from it. All manner of things need to be remedied. Why do I say that the present position is a renaissance by comparison with the past? After the first great war, in 1926 there was a national strike. The hours of work of the miners were lengthened, their wages were reduced, and they were the lowest paid workers in the country. The position changed completely after the last great war. Men are now working less hours, they are receiving higher wages, there is a pension scheme. In every direction the outlook for the miner is brighter and there is a new spirit in the industry. Those two pictures show the difference between private enterprise and public ownership.
Taking the boys and the face-men together, everyone working in the pits today is producing on an average 40 tons of coal a year more than in 1946. That says a lot for the National Coal Board and for public ownership. It may be said that under private ownership they had not the same mechanical knowledge. Yet I remember that in the Backworth Colliery where I worked 45 years ago we had a coal-cutting machine at the coal face
988
for 300 yards of straight face. It was called the "iron man" because it did the work of a human being. Again, I worked on a conveyor belt 35 years ago in Star-gate pit. So that all that time ago the conveyor system and the coal-cutting machine were available and private ownership had the opportunity to improve conditions.
We hear a lot about safety, pithead baths, and so on, for the miner, but I think we sometimes forget his wife and children. The 1951 Report showed that since 1920 we have spent £30 million on welfare for the miners, most of which went on pithead baths. Pithead baths, tennis courts and bowling greens help the men in the industry, but how do they help their wives?
The right hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) described the conditions in Northumberland. I do not want to emphasise the bad housing conditions of the past, but I would urge the Minister and the National Coal Board to assume responsibility for providing houses for the men who work in the pits. Many houses that were built nearly 100 years ago are now owned by the National Coal Board. In addition to pithead baths we want houses fit for the men, their wives, daughters and sons to live in.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) mentioned education and pointed out the opportunities of miners to get more technical knowledge and to take an official part in the industry. Only this weekend I was in Dudley colliery. There I saw six long rows of houses with no piped water and only a tiny kitchenette. On each ground floor there is a larger room which must be used by the children if they want to study or the family to relax. Yet, every time a fire is lit they are smoked out and the smoke even goes into the next-door house.
All the washing has to be done in the kitchenette as well as cooking, and all the water used has to be carried from the street. In addition, when they go to the expense and trouble of putting nice paper on the walls, it will not stick because of the damp, and that damp cannot be remedied. In the little upstairs bedrooms there is no room for a bedroom suite. Perhaps they are not expected to own such things. If they do, there is not the opportunity to put them there.

989
Those who talk so much about the miners should always remember their wives and their children, who will be the miners of the future. If we want some of these people to manage, they should be given opportunities for studying and healthy houses to live in. The National Coal Board inherited the obligation of the colliery housing system, and it is up to them to remedy the existing state of affairs and to get the men into better houses.
I understand that there is a national Miners' Housing Association and that it has some financial connection with the N.C.B. I ask the Minister to say whether the N.C.B. does, in fact, have a financial connection with that association. If this association attempts to build houses in Northumberland or elsewhere for the miners in order to get them better housed, do the Government give the same subsidies and the same financial help to that housing association as they give to a local government district council, and would the N.C.B. only have the same financial liability as a local council has at present? If that is true, it is up to the N.C.B. to make some strong effort, particularly in those parts of Northumberland and Durham where these rotten housing conditions exist, so that better houses can be built in their place.
In Wallsend Borough, there are long rows of colliery houses. In Dudley, however, they are so cramped that they do not even have yards or space for any kind of extension. The Wallsend houses have a fair amount of ground, with bedrooms something like normal, and a wash-house which in some instances the tenants themselves have covered in, and by buying their own bath and fitting it into the wash-house they can get a bath in their own house.
It would not require any great effort or finance by the N.C.B. to convert those wash-houses into bathrooms. The space is there, and all that is necessary is to provide a covering and to connect the water. I stress the need for the N.C.B. to undertake something of this nature in Northumberland and elsewhere.
I come now to the question of the atmosphere and psychology surrounding the miner. It is thrown about all over the country that the miners are in a splendid financial condition. That may be true of a large percentage, but a tremendous number of them do not get what
990
I consider is a living wage if they work simply an ordinary week. It is generally known that in any negotiation for national mining wages, the first thing to be put forward is the claim for a national minimum for all grades. The national minimum, however, has always been higher than the wage which is paid to a large percentage of the workers.
The national minimum wage is greater than the wage which at least 200,000 of the men get when working on the "six for five" basis. For them, the national minimum is their weekly maximum, and they can earn extra money only by working at week-ends. The minimum for surface workers is £6 1s. 6d., and for men working underground, £7 0s. 6d.
How are we to judge whether those 200,000 men are badly paid? One of the factors that provides the answer is the wages of the ordinary worker in industry. In October last, the ordinary earnings in industry generally were £8 6s., and today, without any question, they are £8 10s. or more. How can it be said, therefore, that those 200,000 miners, most of them working underground, are getting a satisfactory wage when their minimum is only £7 0s. 6d.? It is no wonder that the miners' leaders, who know these things, are putting in for an increase in wages. They have a strong case on behalf of the lower paid men, of whom there is a tremendous number in the mines.
How is the basis of a family wage arrived at? Men and women who have specialised in these matters have gone into them over the years. There was the Rowntree decision which was made after special investigation. In April, 1950, the wage—to live not in comfort, but in poverty—was £5 12s. Since then, the cost of living has gone up by 20 per cent. Then comes another specialist to say that instead of £5 12s. the wage should be £6 8s. By splitting the difference and adding the 20 per cent. cost of living increase, we arrive at an average of £7 4s. to provide a family with three children with sufficient on which to live—not in reasonable conditions but, as we are told, on such a small scale that they are not able to buy the ordinary rations of tea, sweets and other things.
Therefore, however well the N.C.B. has done, a false impression prevails as to how well the miners are placed, both with

991
regard to wages for the lower paid men and with regard to the social conditions of their wives and children in their rotten old colliery houses that have never been modernised. We want some movement to be made which is quick and determined, and with finance and labour put into it to see that these changes are made. We should not only give pithead baths but we should get houses for the miners wives and children so that they may have opportunities like other citizens.
There is a tendency on the part of the N.C.B. to ignore their responsibility. With a view to urging them to undertake their responsibility my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth and myself put forward this point of view. We want something done, and we want the Minister and the Department to look into the matter and see what can be done.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South): I shall be short: accordingly I shall not follow the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) into his somewhat controversial retrospect. I wish to add my congratulations to the right hon. Member who opened the debate on the blithe spirit, if I may so describe it, which he set for us and in which the debate has been continued. I think it was only reasonable that he should be allowed the somewhat polemical peroration with which he concluded, but he would be the first to agree that there are many arguments about that, on both sides. It would be better to keep those in the locker and for our debates from now on to be forward-looking and not backward-looking.
The hon. Member for Wallsend may remember, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Blyth knows, that during the 15 years before the outbreak of war the average production per man-year in the coal industry went up by 4 tons each year. That was the general run of production. If we make a realistic assessment of the position we find that we have recovered to the position in which we were in 1937–38 after the continuous increase of 4 tons per man per year. The industry received a tremendous setback during the war, as was bound to happen, but now it has, creditably, recovered, six years after the war, to the position in
992
which it was as regards productivity in 1938.
Mr. McKay: That is not true as regards per man per shift. The per-man-per-shift figure is 1.21 tons at present and the output in 1938 was 1.14 tons.
Mr. Bell: The output-per-man-year figure, which is the significant figure, for 1922–25 was 230 tons.
Mr. McKay: Yes, if they worked longer hours and more shifts.
Mr. Bell: That had gone up to approximately 300 tons by 1937 and it gives a rise of 60 tons per man-year over 15 years, which works out at an average of 4 tons. I mention that because it is important that we should have a realistic assessment of the position. It is important that we should be realistic because the coal industry, above all others, has been bedevilled by politics in the past. To some extent the coalfields have been almost laid waste because of them. I say that with a knowledge of the industry—perhaps not so great as that of hon. Members opposite—derived from South Wales, where feeling ran particularly high. There is no doubt about that.
We now start on a new era. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have had their views in the past about nationalisation and we are entitled to say that we still think it was a wrong step to take; but it is equally clear that we have decided, and made it the basis of our position, to accept what has been done. The only relevant thing to do, if we are to look at the past at all, is to do so for the sake of illuminating our attitude towards the future. The whole debate today, with very few and trifling exceptions, has been conducted on that admirable principle.
The progress which the coal industry has made, and is making, has been reviewed by many who are better qualified to speak on it than I am. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) pointed to one small but growing element of disquiet in the situation which we must all see. It is that we are not quite holding our relative position among the coal-producing countries of Europe. The extent to which we have fallen behind is very small indeed. So far as I can see, making a

993
comparison between the position now and that before the war, we have dropped back 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in our proportion of the total European production. Of course that is not serious, but nevertheless it is a tendency which we do not want to see continued and extended.
There is, however, one ground for satisfaction which has not been referred to. It is that in nearly all the other countries of Western Europe, with the exception of France and one other, the output per man-shift is very much lower than it was before the war, whereas in Great Britain it is higher than it was. That is a very interesting point upon which we should congratulate ourselves. At the same time, we must remember that, taking the total production, which is the final test, we are not quite holding our ground. I presume that is because the other countries of Europe have increased the total manpower engaged in the winning of coal.
I thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde was not quite fair to the achievements of the Board over the past year when he said that, apart from the East Midlands, which we all know is a very successful area —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."— although, of course, its coal is nothing like so good as that from South Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we must not have a Dutch auction on the advantages of the two areas—not a single extra ton had come out of the coalfields of this country. If my arithmetic is correct, on a simple subtraction I reckon that 286,000 extra tons came out of the other coalfields in the first six months of this year. Although small, that is a gratifying improvement.
In manpower also there has been a gratifying improvement. More young people and more people generally have come into the industry since the serious net losses of 1949 and 1950. Last year, and again this year, we had the largest increase in the manpower of the mines since the very rapid return after demobilisation. In view of many statements made, sometimes in the House and sometimes outside, about the declining requirement for manpower of the coal industry —statements which in the long run are perfectly accurate—I think it is desirable to say what I believe to be true beyond any doubt; firstly, that the coal industry still requires more manpower in nearly all
994
the coalfields, as Sir Hubert Houldsworth recently pointed out; and secondly, that the industry affords to any youth who enters it now a satisfying career for the rest of his life.
Dr. H. Morgan: With disease risks.
Mr. Bell: I admit that, of course, but I hope that those risks will be reduced. But it is desirable that it should be known that any youth entering the industry can look forward reasonably to remaining in the industry all his life, because the reduction in numbers is of such an order that it can be achieved by lowering the rate of intake and so allowing the natural loss by age to effect the necessary rundown.
It should be known further that the industry affords a magnificent opportunity to a young man entering now, because the very large planned increase in production which is bound to take place with greatly reduced manpower, affords every likelihood of greater reward and greater opportunity to those going into the industry at the present time. Indeed, I should imagine that the only decrease in opportunity in the industry will be in the opportunity to enter it, and as time goes on I think there will be much competition to do so.
I should like to refer briefly to the question of engineers in the industry. In my view, ever since the end of the war there has been a great demand for good mining engineers, and also for more scope for the good ones, who are already in the industry. Before the war the industry was undoubtedly at the mercy of politics and in consequence many of the most able men left it to go abroad or to go to other branches of engineering and to better-paid jobs.
Men of that standard of ability will not come back to fill some subordinate bureaucratic niche. They must be given wider discretion and responsibility than is conferred upon the average mining engineer in coal mining today. If we are to confer discretion and responsibility upon these mining engineers, we must have good engineers, and we must put them in the right places, because public money is at stake.
I thought, with respect, that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) was wrong when he said that it

995
was most important that promotion should take place mainly from inside the industry. I hope I am not misrepresenting what he said. Another hon. Member opposite challenged him on that point. One of the bad influences in the coal industry for a long time past has been the export out of it of good engineering talent. We now want to reverse the process and bring some talent in.
When engineering brains are exported, there is a consequent narrowness of outlook. There have been many instances of that. The industry was not enriched by knowledge and experience from outside of continental and other foreign techniques. For example, horizon mining has been something of a novelty for many people in this country since the war, but I know that it was carried out on a very extensive scale in many countries in Europe and elsewhere abroad before the war. One mining engineer told me of the enormous output he achieved in Chinese mines by horizon mining in 1937 and 1938. If we had afforded opportunities and suitable scope to people of ability in the past, we should have learned much more from them much sooner than we have done.
Many hon. Members have referred to capital development. In my view—and I speak with great deference, because I am not an engineer—the main planning of the Board has been sound in its broad conception, but within the practice of the planning departments there is much to be desired. That is primarily due to the fact, to which I have just referred, of the shortage of good mining engineers in the industry. Once one obtains the right men, one can have the right method, and here again I think bureaucracy has hampered and tied up the processes of the industry.
I should like to give just one example in planning at the present time. I understand that before a project is approved it has to be fully worked out, costed in every detail and sent up to the divisional board, or even higher, where is can be considered officially and approved by the administrative departments, in which I have no doubt chartered accountants play their due part. Then, having got to that level, it may or may not be accepted. If it is rejected all the work done on it,
996
which may represent weeks or months of planning time, is wasted, with consequent expense and delay.
The proper way of administering that kind of work is for rough schemes to be submitted, approximately costed, and approved in principle, by men relying upon their experience and judgment, and then the detailed work could take place once approval had been granted. That may not seem a very big thing, but when it is repeated time and time again throughout the whole process of the planning departments, one is up against a major factor both as to time and expense. I mention that as one illustration of the way in which the administration of the industry could be improved.
In devoting most of my speech to criticisms of the industry, I have not in any way sought to impugn or attack the administration of the Coal Board. I think that one can be more helpful by criticising than by praising. At the same time, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the new Chairman, Sir Hubert Houldsworth, neither of whom has been in office very long, upon the excellent results which have been achieved in the short time at their disposal.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. David Thomas: I think we are all agreed that there is a better tone prevailing in the Committee today than that which has prevailed in previous coal debates when the Labour Party were in power. The prophesies which were made about nationalisation have not come true, and there is no doubt at all that nationalisation is proving a huge success. As time goes on further improvements will be effected and output will increase, with the co-operation of the N.C.B., the National Union of Mineworkers and, not least, those who are working in the industry—the officials and the men who will certainly continue to give of their best.
Many figures have been quoted this afternoon, and therefore I do not propose to use many of the figures which I had collected, but I would say, before using a few, that the patriotism and the loyalty of all concerned in the mining industry is beyond doubt, and this Committee should issue forthwith the highest praise and gratitude for what has been done since vesting day, 1st January, 1947. I have said right from vesting day that

997
nationalisation would prove a success. There have been arguments for many years in favour of nationalisaion, and efforts were made to get various Governments to nationalise the coalmining industry. A recommendation was made as far back as 1919, but nothing came of nationalisation until the Labour Party got into power. As I have said, prophesies were made by hon. Members opposite that nationalisation would prove a failure, but their words have not come true.
The pleasant feature is that during 1951 the output of coal greatly increased and the output per man-shift was the highest on record. The miners, therefore, deserve thanks for all that they have done and for their willingness in the time of the nation's trouble to work the Saturday shift. I ask myself what other body of workers would so willingly give up a day per week to work for the country. I know that is being done also by the steel workers and other industrial workers who have a five-day week, but thousands take that day to which they are justly entitled. If the Government asked them to work I have no doubt that those workers would also certainly obey the call.
My hon. Friends have mentioned figures relating to output per man-shift, but I think the latest figures are worth while recording. Taking the years 1947, 1950 and 1951, the output per man-shift, in tons, was 1.07, 1.19 and 1.21, respectively. The average shifts per man per year for those years was 244, 245 and 250. Output per man per year was 261, 291 and 302. In view of those figures we can expect still further increases.
Reference has also been made to the conditions under which the miners work. Whilst one would readily admit that conditions are improving, I would say that much has yet to be done to make the conditions of work underground anything like what they should be. I know that the N.C.B. are doing all they possibly can, together with the workmen's side. With regard to industrial diseases, we are all glad to see that the figures of certification for pneumoconiosis are on the decline, but they are still far too high, and when I see colliers working at the coalface with their faces as black as can be, I see no difference between their present physical condition and that of 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago.
Mr. Horace Holmes: I think the hon. Member would agree that a good deal of work has been done in relation to dust suppression.
Mr. Thomas: I agree that efforts have been made in dust suppression, but I do not think that anybody in this Committee thinks that we shall ever entirely eliminate dust from a coalmine. There will always be that danger lurking. Nevertheless, we welcome the efforts which are being made and we hope that the figures will continue to decline.
With regard to accidents, the cry the whole time is for more coal. Believe me, the workers at the face are doing all they possibly can, and the figures I have mentioned for output per man-shift and output per year per man do not indicate what is done by the colliers at the coalface in a 7½ hours' shift. If one takes into account the walking time in and out it is not anything like 7½ hours at the face. Occasionally during Parliamentary Recesses I go down mines and see the men at the coalface. I want to keep in touch with the improvements which are being brought about.
When I see men working in seams 2 ft. 9 in. thick or 4 ft. thick or 5ft. thick, cutting the coal, throwing it to the conveyor, handling at least 11 or 12 or 15 tons per shift, I realise their difficulties, and I realise, too, that that is a colossal output for one man to turn out. These fellows, who are toiling and running grave risks every minute of the day, deserve all the praise that it is possible to give to them from the whole of the population of this country.
Turning to the question of accidents, in 1951, 233,000 workers were injured to an extent that they lost three or more days' work. Unfortunately, 487 miners lost their lives. That is a reduction by comparison with the fatalities of years ago, but the figure is still far too high. I urge upon the N.C.B. that they should keep the question of safety in their minds the whole time, and I believe they are doing so. We see firemen, as we call them in South Wales, running up and down the face, and output is the cry the whole time.
As has been said all along the years, deputies should be employed only on safety work, testing for gas, seeing that props are erected properly and watching

999
for any other faults, getting them put right and avoiding accidents. Much can be done in this way. Indeed, I think the Chief Inspector of Mines refers in his Reports to the position about safety being not entirely satisfactory. I hope the N.C.B. will endeavour to keep the deputies on safety work the whole time.
Last Saturday unfortunately, another mining calamity took place in the Point of Air colliery. I searched the Press yesterday, through the weekly journals, for reports of it. In the end I found three or four small lines of print referring to the fact that, unfortunately, six men had lost their lives in that calamity on Saturday. That suggests to me—but I may be wrong —that not sufficient publicity is given to these occurrences. I have no doubt, on the other hand, that all will be readily sympathetic when such accidents occur.
I shall not refer at length to the question of wages, for my hon. Friends have already stated what the day rate workers receive today. Without giving figures—and my hon. Friends referred to them correctly—and having regard to the increased cost of living and to the index figure at 135, I would say that the miners have not received the increases which should have been paid to them, bearing in mind the dangerous occupation which they follow. Indeed, I would say with him that we trust that their efforts to get the further improvements in their wages will succeed, and that this nation will keep those who produce the wealth of the country—the miners, and the steel workers, and the agricultural workers, and so on—very high on the list as far as weekly wages are concerned.
There is one point I have overlooked, and I shall finish in a moment now, so that some other hon. Member on the opposite side may have five or 10 minutes to speak before the winding up of the debate. I would say, on the question of the compensation which is paid to men who are injured in the mining industry—indeed, in all other industries—that the payments are not anything like adequate. After a man has been injured he receives a much lower amount with which to maintain himself and his family.
What is wrong in suggesting—and the more we agitate on this question the earlier, perhaps, we shall get satisfactory
1000
results—that a miner, when he is on the injured list, should be paid a sum comparable with his full weekly wage, or his average weekly wage? We find it so with the managers in the coal industry. We find it with other officials in the coal industry. It always has been so. Indeed, in all other industries the managers, the clerical staff, have it so. The police throughout the country, the teaching profession—[An HON. MEMBER: "Andpoliticians."]—yes, and politicians, if they are ill, get fully paid. All of them. Is there anything wrong in asking that the Government should see that miners and others who produce the wealth of the country should be treated likewise?
I know that very many hon. Gentlemen on both sides are sympathetic about this. Indeed, some of their speeches today certainly did not contain the venom which we had in some speeches from members of the party opposite long ago relating to the mining industry. We are all in the same boat together. We must look after each other. We must be fair, and see that justice is meted out to those who, as I say, produce the wealth of this country, and I would say unhesitatingly that the miner who suffers injury should not be expected to live month after month on a very low weekly amount with which to maintain himself and his family. I know that this problem is in the minds of many in the mining industry today.
Let us hope that ere long we shall succeed in the agitation which we are making with a view to improving still further the circumstances of those I would term, having been connected with the mining industry for many years, the most hardworking, the bravest, and the most loyal set of workers throughout the whole land. I do not want any hon. Friend of mine specially connected with another industry to intervene at the moment, but I do say that the miners are as good as any other set of workers in the whole of the country.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: All those hon. Members representing mining constituencies bring to debates of this sort the very human problems with which their constituents are faced, and I am sure that the Committee on all occasions is very glad indeed to have the opportunity of listening to their first-hand experience

1001
of the great problems of the great coalfields of this country. I wish, however, to turn from the immediate problems of what is, after all, merely one section of the fuel and power industry to deal not so much with what has happened in the past as with the prospects for the future.
The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said that it was easy to blind people with science. I must confess that I am one of those who get blinded with the greatest ease. Not having been brought up as a scientist, I find it very difficult to assess the possibilities that lie ahead in technical progress, but even to somebody like myself it is clear that, as I at any rate see it, we are now on the threshold of great advances, particularly in the application of technology and technical improvement to our fuel and power problems.
I believe that it is only right to look upon coal more and more as a raw material—and a very precious raw material—and less as a sole source of fuel and power here, and I should like to put some questions to the Minister, which I hope will be of some interest to him, about the progress which is being made, particularly under the auspices of his Department, with technical progress generally.
I note, for instance, in the "Daily Express" today a statement that plans are being worked out by his Department to enable coal to be pumped by pipeline over a distance in order to cut down transport costs. It is said in this article that this was first tried out successfully some 40 years ago over a comparatively short distance, and now it is being applied to the problem of transporting coal over a much greater distance. I, and I think the Committee as a whole, would like to know how far that sort of progress is taking place.
One notes, as I think we always do in these circumstances, that lapse of 40 years between the conception of the idea and the carrying of it into practice. In this debate we have not gone too far into the past or into disagreements, trying to find fault one way or another, but no doubt in all generations and at all times this type of progress takes place slowly. Therefore, this is in its inception. At the same time, with the increase of technical knowledge and the increased skill of our scientists, surely we can
1002
make progress far quicker now than ever before.
I also wish to ask about another form of development which is taking place at the present time, and that is the generation of electricity by means of windmills. Not long ago an inventor came to me with a suggestion that he had found a practical way of using wind to generate electricity cheaply and in a considerable mass. I do not know anything about it and therefore was not able to judge, so I sent it to the Ministry and asked for their views. They said, as we know from reports, that they are already experimenting with this in the Orkneys. What progress has been made with those experiments, and what are the prospects of successful use in the future?
I should like also to know what progress has been made, and what are the prospects, in the use of atomic power. This, surely, is a subject on which the Minister and his Department should be very closely in touch with Harwell and the authorities concerned with it. We know of the progress made in America, and I should like to know how much we can look forward to developments of that sort.
It seems to me quite clear that we who at the present moment depend so greatly upon our coal supplies must place the export of coal as a priority. I understand the Minister has agreed to export this year about 12 million tons. That is a substantial increase, but compared with the past it is a very small total export. I should have said it would have been well worth our while to have taken a risk during the winter months and tried to ensure that this year 15 million tons were exported. If that were possible, I believe that it would enable us to keep the markets which otherwise we may lose in the next few years to Germany and perhaps to Polish competition. If that is to be the case, if coal is to be our most precious raw material, and if we are to export it abroad, clearly we have to find alternatives in this country.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) mentioned the old and often discussed project of the Severn barrage. One knows of the immense capital expenditure involved in that scheme. At the same time, surely none of these projects should be put in a pigeon-hole if they

1003
can assist in what I believe to be the essential industrial problem of Britain today. I would only say—I do not want to keep the Committee long, as I know that there are others who wish to speak —that we do need, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a far more decisive and energetic drive behind the policy of fuel efficiency.
It is admitted on both sides of the Committee, by experts and by non-experts, that there is a great possibility of saving a large tonnage, which is variously estimated at between 20 million tons and 40 million tons, as a result of fuel efficiency measures. I know that this takes time, and I know that progress has been made. I know that there has been considerable progress in accepting the principle that lies behind the £1 million loan, but so far as the industry generally is concerned that loan is merely a token of sympathy rather than a practical step in the direction which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee wish to see taken.
Therefore, I ask the Minister, when he replies, to give some forecast, if that is possible, or at any rate some definite statement that he intends to carry on the policy of which the foundation stone, and no more than that, has been laid by the decision to allow a £1 million loan for the re-equipment of industry with fuel-efficiency machinery. I believe, as I have said more than once in the House, that until we can assure that the coal that is produced is used efficiently, and until we can ensure that we have a surplus for export, we shall never be able to feel secure in our economic position in this country.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have paid a tribute to the miners and the mining industry. There have been references to the past, but it is the present and the future which really matter. The Minister has a most important job and we on this side of the Committee believe that considerable progress has been made during the last few months. We are hopeful that when the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, replies, he will be able to show us further steps in technological improvements and also in providing any means that are possible to ensure the efficient use of the coal that is produced.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Harold Neal: The debate today has covered a very wide field. There have been some good speeches on almost every aspect of fuel and power problems. Indeed, I cannot recall an occasion when congratulations have been so mutual and the exchanges so felicitous as they have been today. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I give notice that I may strike a discordant note in this debate. In the course of my speech, I hope to deal with some of the arguments that have been put forward during the day.
The subject on which I wish to focus attention, as I am sure I shall be expected to do, is coal. Generally speaking, gas and electricity, the other partners in the fuel and power industries, can look after themselves if coal supplies are adequate and reasonably priced. Coal is, was and will be the basis of our industrial prosperity. Coal was the foundation of the industrial and commercial supremacy that we built up during the Victorian era when ships left these shores filled with black diamonds and the manufactured goods of our coal-driven factories, and returned to these shores filled with raw materials which were the world's tribute to British coal and the energy and capacity of our people. It is none the less true today. That is why politicians and economists watch the weekly figures of the coal industry and eagerly await the publication of the Report of the National Coal Board.
As I have listened to the speeches today, I have been letting time play with memory, and I could not help feeling what a change there was in this debate compared with debates to which we listened when hon. Gentlemen opposite were the Opposition. How contemptuously they used to speak of nationalisation. How they lamented the alleged inefficiency, extravagance and bankruptcy of our publicly-owned industries. Every feature of production and distribution in the fuel and power industries came under the lash of their criticisms. Output of coal, exports, output per man-shift, absenteeism, opencast coal, power cuts, load shedding—everything was criticised which could be turned to political advantage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), when he

1005
was Minister of Fuel and Power, used to have 30 Questions addressed to him every week by hon. Gentlemen opposite. What a contrast is the moderation which they now show to their own Minister. Is all this change justified by the appearance of new faces at Millbank? I doubt it, and I am rather sceptical about this sudden conversion to co-operation in the coal industry.
The right hon. Gentleman is a very fortunate Minister. He is able to report continuously rising manpower and increased output. In the 26 weeks ended 28th June, 1952, the saleable output of deep-mined and opencast coal was 114,400,000 tons compared with 112,885,100 tons in the 26 weeks ended 30th June. 1951—an increase of 1,544,900 tons. The manpower situation over that period is equally encouraging. At the end of June, 1951, there were 701,700 men in the industry, and that figure has now risen to 718,100.
I join hon. Members who have welcomed the fact that among the additional recruits to the industry are a number of juveniles. That is a very hopeful sign. It is an indication that it is felt, particularly in the coalfields, that parents are now justified in sending their boys into the industry for a career. If we have come to the point that we have overtaken the wastage of manpower in the industry, it is certainly a great step forward in the progress of coal.
The figures that I have quoted are very encouraging. They are an adequate answer to hon. Members opposite who voted against the nationalisation of the industry. In five years nationalisation has given an average increase of 6 million tons of coal a year.
If the Minister wonders why he is able to report this progress—and let me say in parenthesis that I never in my wildest dreams thought that I should hear a Tory Minister give such a welcome appraisal of the coal industry as we had today—I can tell him that it is because, for the first time, this industry has been planned as a national unit. It is because, for the first time, this industry has been given a social purpose. It is because, for the first time, the miners can feel, as they enter the pit cage in the morning, as they stand poised over the impenetrable darkness, as they are about to undergo their arduous and dangerous work, that they contribute something of real value to the
1006
common weal, instead of contributing merely to the profits of a few privileged individuals.
Let me turn to the subject of output per man-shift. In 1938 the overall output per man-shift was 1.14 tons. In the last year of the privately-owned industry, in 1946, it was 1.03 tons. Since vesting day there has been a steady rise until, by 1951, the output per man-shift has risen to 1.21 tons. When the Labour Government were in office, we used proudly to cite these figures of rising output per man-shift, but Lord Hudson, who was then a Member of this House, used to ask the question, "Yes, but what about output per man-year?" The statistics of the National Coal Board, which have just been issued in an admirable publication, provide the answer. In 1938 the output per man-year was 290 tons. In 1946, the last year of private ownership, the output per man-year was 260 tons. In 1951, it was 303 tons, the highest in the recorded history of the coal industry.
I always look upon the Minister of Fuel and Power as the kid-gloved pugilist of the Tory Party. His reasonableness and his disarming courtesy are generally acknowledged. It may be that his strictures have escaped my diligent research, because I have not been able to find anything that he has said at any time which was detrimental to the Coal Board or to the miners. In the knowledge of the figures I have just quoted, I should like to ask when some of his senior colleagues are going to be honest enough to come forward and pay a tribute to the miners for the contribution they have made to the post-war recovery of this country.
I cannot leave the subject of output without referring to opencast mining. I deplore as much as anybody the necessity to despoil the countryside and reduce its amenities. I am equally sympathetic towards the farmers whose land has been requisitioned and whose production has been interrupted. My own constituency has been riddled with opencast mining operations, and I know a good deal about the complaints that come from the sources which are affected. This modern adjunct to our colliery resources has enabled us to keep the wheels of industry turning and to get a foothold in the export market. From opencast mining, 11 million tons were realised in 1951

1007
On this side of the Committee we remember that when a Labour Minister of Fuel and Power was in office he was always assailed with vigorous criticism about opencast mining. When Lord Bracken—whose absence from this Chamber has been lamented here today —was a Member of this House, he frequently led the debates for the party opposite. Before he sought refuge in another place, with what reluctance we can only imagine, he made severe criticisms of opencast mining. He wanted to end it two years ago, when he was speaking for the Tory Party. He said:
"Surely, the time has come to put an end to this vandalism."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 19th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 2283.]
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Neal: An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear." Was that the official policy of the Tory Party? Is it now the official policy? Does the Minister intend to sacrifice those 11 million tons of opencast coal? I am sure not. The responsibilities of office make all the difference between challenge and performance. What the Minister ought to do is to plan a progressive reduction of opencast mining, concomitant with the increased production of deep-mined coal. The reduction should be arranged geographically, so as to relieve the apprehensions of the agricultural industry.
I now turn to the subject of safety in mines. In recent years there have been many debates and speeches here on the subject, but I make no apology for returning to it. I am a miner, with a miner's outlook. Even if I could remove the blue scars from my body which are the indelible marks of my calling, I could not forget the years I have spent underground, sharing the dangers of this industry with some of the best and bravest subjects of the realm. It will be understood that I speak with feeling on this subject.
Last week we had a salutary reminder of the need for action in this matter, by the disaster that occurred at the Point of Air colliery in North Wales. An airlock collapsed while men were working under high pressure, and six men lost their lives. Further, the report was issued last week of the inquiry into the Creswell disaster which occurred on 26th September, 1950.
1008
When I say that Creswell is within my own constituency, it will be appreciated how easily aroused my emotions are when this disaster is mentioned. Many of the victims were my own personal friends.
In that disaster, 80 men lost their lives in the terrible fire that occurred; 47 bodies were recovered on 26th September, the day of the disaster, and 27 more bodies were recovered on 25th March, 1951. Six more bodies were recovered on 11th August, 1951. I hope that a recital of those dates and figures will cause the Committee to appreciate the tension, the fear and the bereavement that have been so long-drawn-out in this village. The inquiry lasted for the three days of 17th, 18th and 19th October, 1950. It was resumed on 27th and 28th November, 1951. Tomorrow the wounds will be re-opened once again by the concluding stages of the coroner's inquest.
Here I want to pay a tribute to Sir Andrew Bryan for the admirable report he has produced concerning this accident. It is written with great skill and care, and, in view of the fact that before the inquiry was completed he became a member of the National Coal Board, it is written with commendable impartiality. I want also to pay a tribute to the National Coal Board for the steps they took after the disaster, not only in the Derbyshire coalfield but all over the country, to lessen the hazards of fire underground. I cannot share the view of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), who contended that the National Coal Board are complacent about accidents.
I shall not weary the Committee with technical details of the recommendations made by Sir Andrew Bryan in regard to water barriers, thermostatic control devices, fireproof belting, and other things. I shall content myself with directing the attention of the Minister to five words in that report. At the conclusion of his recommendations Sir Andrew Bryan says, "Much remains to be done." Research in the field of safety is too slow. If the Minister makes inquiries, he will be surprised to learn how long it takes to secure approval even for a safety lamp or a gas detector. Excellent work is being done by the Safety in Mines Research Establishment, and also by

1009
doctors and scientists who are investigating the causes and cure of diseases arising from dust inhalation. Yet research is painfully slow.
As I told the Committee a few moments ago, there is no subject to which I am more emotionally drawn than that of safety in mines. Pits and pit-men have made up most of my existence, and I want to see a vigorous attack made upon this problem. I tell the Minister frankly that there is uneasiness in the coalfields. The National Union of Mineworkers is diverting its attention from the normal work of trade union activity to setting up committees to inquire into questions of safety. It is bringing from all parts of the coalfield it Workmen's Inspectors to advise on what should be done. The union is undertaking this task because it is so apprehensive about this problem.
I apologise if I have wearied the Committee with these details, but I tell the Minister that no matter what wages we pay in this industry, if there is no immunity from disasters like Creswell, we shall never get the manpower that the industry requires.
Colonel L. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?
Mr. Neal: I am sorry; I cannot give way because I have undertaken to sit down at a given time.
Happily the accident rate has shown a marked decline in the last five years. Nothing will help the Minister to appreciate the immensity of this problem more than to copy the example of his predecessors by making periodic visits underground. When did the co-ordinating Minister last descend a coal mine? I know that his tasks are of a varied and enormous character. He has to coordinate the industries of civil aviation, transport and shipping, as well as fuel and power. One suspects that one day he should be in the air, the next day down a mine, and another day at sea. Some of us think that he is at sea altogether. I do not see any reason why the commander-in-chief should not sometimes go to see the commandos in the front line.
The Minister may reply by saying that this country has the best safety regulations in the world. It is true that we have, but I ask him to contemplate those
1010
candid words of Sir Andrew Bryan, who has the confidence of all sides of the industry: "Much remains to be done."
I conclude with one or two questions about the future prospects and policy in fuel and power. It was recently announced, and the Minister has confirmed today, that 12,500,000 tons of coal are to be exported this year. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, to say whether that figure is to be fulfilled and whether there is any prospect of its being increased. With present trends and the favourable weather, this figure of 12,500,000 tons ought to be increased. Lord Bracken, in a speech to which I referred earlier, which he made in the House when he was Mr. Bracken, uttered this gem of wisdom:
"If we had coal to exchange for meat there would be no need for an 8d. ration of gristle." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1095.]
That might be communicated to the Coordinating Minister for food and agriculture. It might assist him in relieving his discomfiture and in fulfilling some of his broken promises.
If we are to restore the economy of the country, we must export more coal and consume less. It is startling to me that no coal target was fixed in the Economic Survey for 1952. I wonder why. The miners are doing their share towards hitting the target—if one had been fixed. They have loaned back to the Government for most of the year the five-day week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but what does it mean to the miner who sacrifices his five-day week for most of the year? He is living, probably, side by side with a man working in a factory, who has a five-day week and can go to his sport and pursue his social activity at the weekend: but the miner is working on Saturdays to assist the countrys production.
Is the Minister satisfied with the developments that are taking place in the industry? Sinkings like those at Rothes and Bevercotes may be all very satisfactory, but it will be eight or 10 years before we get any reasonable output from collieries of this nature. Some of us believe that a reorganisation of the existing pits would bring a quicker fillip to output.
I believe it was the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) who mentioned the

1011
danger of the dwindling European market, and I think there was some reason for his perturbation. I doubt whether we could generally accept the view of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead, who said that American coal was quoted more cheaply than British coal in Italy last week. I believe the Americans have a long way to go before they can continuously do that.
Colonel Clarke: I said they were doing it.
Mr. Neal: But was this an odd shipment of coal which had been diverted and which they were glad to sell at the price?
Colonel Clarke: I do not think so.
Mr. Neal: Or are we to think that consistently American coal can be taken to Italy more cheaply than British coal? If that is true we are in a bad way. I believe that time is our enemy in this matter and that some attempt must be made to increase the export of coal, and that the plan of the National Coal Board of 250 million tons in 15 years should be reduced to less than that period.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) gave some interesting figures about capital investment. I am sure they will be the concern of the Minister and that he will give adequate study to them after the debate. The hon. and gallant Member told us that even before the war, under private enterprise, £24 million a year was expended in capital investment in the coal industry. I do not know what official figures he has to substantiate that statement, but, with reference to the £30 million now being invested in the industry, we should like to know whether the Ministry are satisfied that the industry are getting all the capital investment they require. Are they short of materials or short of money? If they are short of either, it should be the job of the Minister to see that they are satisfied.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not in his place; that is no injustice to him, as he has been present throughout the debate.
Mr. Shurmer: He has gone down his cellar.
Mr. Neal: My right hon. Friend mentioned that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had written a book—which I am glad to hear has a fairly ready sale—which is a genuine attempt to make the country fuel-conscious. Can the Minister tell us just how much of the recently announced loan has been taken up, how much of that £1 million has been already accepted as a loan by the industrialists of the country? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will tell us how much has been already expended.
I direct the attention of the Minister to this final question, because it is very important. I want to submit a question to him for which he has had nine months in which to provide an answer. Is it the Government's intention to decentralise the coal industry? I know that this subject has been well worn in the past by the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde. He has written pamphlets about it, and it even found its way into the Conservative manifesto over the signature of the Prime Minister.
Mr. James Griffiths: That shows that it is not going to be done.
Mr. Neal: When the right hon. Gentleman was challenged during the debate on the Address on 8th November, he hedged in his answer to this question. He pleaded that he had been in office for only seven days and, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), he did not give a categorical reply. We want to know whether he can tell us, without any equivocation, if it is intended that the coal industry shall be de-centralised?
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I did give a categorical answer on 19th November, and many hon. Members from mining areas said that it allayed anxiety in the coalfields. I stand by that answer.
Mr. Neal: That is rather interesting information to me, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. But the National Union of Mineworkers are opening their conference in Scarborough today. On their agenda is a resolution which, after paying tribute to the work of the Labour Government and the leadership of my

1013
right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.—[Laughter.}—Why should they not?—concludes with these words:
"This conference warns the Government that any action aimed to destroy the unity of the mining industry or to defeat the purpose of nationalisation will be met by the unanimous opposition of all mineworkers."
That resolution is in the name of Sir William Lawther, the President, and the Executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. It shows that there is some apprehension about the intentions of the Government.
The present organisation of the National Coal Board has been tried and proved. Five years of nationalisation have saved this country from economic disaster. This good work must not be undone. It is no use this country having jet propulsion in the air if it does not take the opportunity to exploit fully the resources that it has under the surface of the earth. In this island prosperity lies beneath our feet and, given the willing co-operation of the Government and of all sides of the industry, that prosperity can be found.
9.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) will not mind if I do not take up immediately the points which he has been making, though I think we can say straight away that as a result of this debate we look forward to his going to Scarborough tomorrow and telling the conference that at any rate there is one resolution which they need not trouble to debate.
Mr. Neal: The party opposite change their manifesto between conferences. We do not.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to return, however, to the opening speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). If I may be allowed to do so, I can say with all sincerity that the Committee can really congratulate itself upon the standard of today's debate. It has been carried on in a truly constructive spirit and in no sense in a partisan spirit. While criticisms have been made, that is the object of the debate, and so long as they are constructive criticisms they are welcome.
I shall endeavour to answer as many of the questions put to me during the course
1014
of the day as I can. I am afraid that in the limited time it will not be possible to answer all of them. I shall strive to do so, and I hope that I shall succeed in the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth used in opening the debate when he said, "Let us please free these industries from the political arena." With that I wholeheartedly agree; it is our object and desire.
First of all, the right hon. Gentleman asked some questions about capital investment in the industries and particularly about steel. He asked what the Government were doing to enable the industries to obtain the capital investment required for development, and in particular to obtain the scarce raw material of steel. I think he will not mind my reminding him that the situation as it is was an inherited one, but we are grappling with it. We are seeking to meet him and the criticisms he has made and the number of points to which he has referred. One related to gas pipes. There is a blockage in the delivery of gas pipes, and what we are doing here is to have a special review of the orders which have been placed in order to determine the priority necessary for the most urgent cases. That is a practical step to meet the immediate needs of that situation.
The next point related to electricity. The B.E.A. is reconsidering, among other things, the designs of its power stations to see whether they can be designed to use less bricks and steel. In addition, of course, and as a general matter which hardly applies to this debate, the Government are taking other steps to do everything possible to increase the overall production of steel so as to enable more to be available for all consumers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what steps are being taken, in relation to the Coal Board itself, to meet the immediate necessities of development. We do realise the vital urgency to develop as rapidly as possible the programme of the Coal Board in order to obtain better and increased production. Everything possible is being done. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1951 the investment programme for the Coal Board was £29 million. The planned programme of investment for this year was £33 million, but that has already gone up by £5 million and it is being extended to £38 million. That will give some

1015
measure of the importance which we attach to the matter of pressing forward with development as rapidly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about coal stocks, and he inquired what stocks we were aiming at having at the end of the coal summer. It would be a rash person, and certainly not one who had been brought up in the law, who gave a categorical answer to that question, but I would say that we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the figure of 16 million to 17 million tons which was achieved by the previous Administration, did not allow any margin for a hard winter, and we shall endeavour to reach a higher figure than that.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me particularly about what I said in my speech to the Society of Coal Merchants. I think the best way of dealing with that is to tell him shortly but frankly exactly what I did say, and then I am sure he will not have any graver apprehensions than they had, because they seemed to be rather well satisfied with the speech, at the time at any rate. The point was simply this. We had been discussing the possibility of obtaining greater freedom in the industry, and I was suggesting that it would be a good thing if we could get together to discuss whether, as a first step. it would be feasible to enable the consumers to change their merchants at any time during the year instead of at one particular date, which is normally selected at the end of the spring.
My belief is—and this is what I suggested to the Society—that if the consumers, who are normally ladies, are given the opportunity of exercising their freedom at any time of the year they will not worry to do it, but if they are told that they cannot do it except at a particular moment, then that is the time at which they will choose to do it. Whether or not the merchants will adopt the same view, I cannot say. It is not a matter of very great importance one way or the other.
I have received many complaints—as has my right hon. Friend—that when a consumer moves his house and so happens to pass from one zone to another—it may be a matter of only 200 yards—he has to change his coal merchant, because that merchant is not allowed to trade outside his zone. I suggested that
1016
we might discuss this problem to see whether there might be some alleviation of that restriction. It might involve the admission of other merchants into the industry as a corollary. It is a matter for discussion, and it has not gone beyond that. Discussions have taken place but no decision has yet been arrived at.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the Ridley Committee was going to report. How can I say when that Committee will report? That is a matter which is in the hands of the Committee. I can only say that we look forward to the report being issued quite shortly. Beyond that it is impossible for me to go.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question which I do not think he would have answered had he been on this side of the Committee, and that was whether the Ministry of Fuel and Power would take over the obtaining of the licences required by those applicants for loans from the £1 million fund whose applications had been recommended and were to be granted by the Finance Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that would not be a matter for this particular Department. So far there is no sign of it being necessary, but the situation is such that we are naturally anxious to see that no question of delay should arise in putting into operation any recommendations in relation to fuel efficiency schemes. We are accordingly watching the situation and, if difficulties arise, we shall have to see what is the best way of tackling the situation so that the necessary licences may be obtained.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a substantial expansion of the fuel efficiency units and the work which is being done by them. The crux of the difficulty is that we cannot obtain the qualified fuel engineers. We are already 17 under establishment, and that is through no parsimony on our part, but through our inability to obtain the qualified men. But substantial advances have been made in other directions.
In addition to four mobile testing units, which are the big vans containing very substantial and valuable equipment, we have in operation at the moment 12 light vans, which were added last year. They go out to test production and consumption of heat and power at industrial premises. As I think the Committee well know by now, they produce a heat

1017
balance, something like a balance sheet except, but instead of dealing with pounds, shillings and pence, it deals with heat, to see that not more heat is produced than can economically be consumed and to see that there is no wastage of the heat which is being consumed.
In 1950–51, 50 firms were visited by the vans and the mobile testing units. In 1951–52, 221 firms were visited, which is a very substantial increase. In addition to that, fuel efficiency officers go round to tender advice, and during the year they visited no less than 16,365 industrial premises, which indicates not only that fuel efficiency is fully recognised by the Government as being an essential concomitant of the whole picture of fuel and power, but that it is also welcomed by industry. Certainly the reception which we have received from industry has been very valuable and very good.
In addition to that, the branch does all sorts of peculiar things, and amongst other things which it has done during the past year is the carrying out, at the request of the authorities, of an industrial survey of the horticultural industry in Guernsey. It has collected and published the results of a survey which it carried out into the cinemas of this country. It is continuously disseminating information in one way or another, and one of the most valuable things which it does is to give practical demonstrations to stokers on their own firing floors. As we know, this has resulted in substantial reductions in fuel consumption through improving the quality of the stoking and, in addition, it has resulted in substantial economies to the managements of companies, which has made it still more attractive from their point of view.
May I turn for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) and join with him in what he said about the increased output in the coal mines being due not only to increased machinery but also to the efforts of the men? We fully appreciate that and we join entirely with him in what he said. We appreciate that, as he said, there is a good relationship growing up in the mines.
The hon. Gentleman asked what was to happen to the non-profitable collieries. The answer is that, for the time being at any rate and until considerable further development has taken place, all the coal that can be obtained is necessary; but
1018
gradually those collieries which are being worked out will have to close down and those collieries which still have plenty of coal left will be the subject of schemes for modernisation which should result in their becoming economic propositions.
I want to refer in particular to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) who made, as I think the Committee will agree, a very useful contribution to our discussions; and I want to assure him that the National Coal Board have special arrangements for recruiting juveniles into the industry and for training them in the technical sides of the industry, such as electricity. My hon. Friend need not have much worry on that score.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover, have referred to safety in the mines, and I fully appreciate the attitude in which the hon. Member for Bolsover raised this question. I have every sympathy with him in the tragedy which overtook his constituents and his friends. But the Committee should not get the impression that either the Ministry—and this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend—or the Coal Board are in the least complacent or apathetic about this subject. In fact, safety in the mines has been improving regularly year by year.
I have taken out the figures, and if we go back to the beginning of the century we find that the average yearly fatalities between 1900 and 1920, when admittedly the mining force was considerably greater, were about 1,250 a year, and the number of serious non-fatal accidents 5,500. By 1935–39 the annual average had dropped to 830 fatalities and 3,210 serious accidents. In 1951, including the disasters at Easington, Eppleton and Weetslade, which accounted for 97 fatalities, the number was down to 487 with 1,942 serious accidents. It does indicate that efforts are being made and that results are being achieved in trying to overcome this terrible problem. Continuous progress is being made in the matters of roof support, haulage, and anti-fire precautions, both on conveyors and in every other way.
However, there is one thing we cannot get away from, and it is a thing upon which the hon. Member for Bolsover can help a very great deal, as I know he wishes to do, and that is the report which

1019
has been made year after year by H.M. Chief Inspector of Mines that half of the serious accidents in the coalmines result from carelessness by the men themselves. If we can only get the sense of the realisation of the importance of the safety regulations in the mines, if we can do away with that attitude of familiarity breeding contempt, then we can really reduce the accidents which do arise.
Out of this question I should like to go a little farther on the general question of safety legislation. I think that both sides of the Committee are well aware of the need for the present statute to be overhauled and brought up to date—these things to be done when opportunity and the state of Parliamentary business can permit; but we on this side of the Committee are subject to a very special spur in the matter because, as the right hon. Member for Blyth may not remember, the Lord Privy Seal, when he was Minister for Mines in 1938, was responsible for the setting up of the Royal Commission, and when that Royal Commission reported the present Minister for Fuel and Power came over to the Department with the intention and object of implementing the Report of that Royal Commission by the introduction of legislation. So the Committee will realise that we have a very special interest in the matter.
Indeed, if it had not been for the war it would probably have been done; but after the war, which delayed it, it was wise to let the changes settle down for a time. A great deal of preparatory work needs to be done in the Department before a Bill can be prepared. That work was suspended during the war. In fact, we are advised that it will take something like one and a half to two years to get all the preparatory work ready, but instructions have been given by my right hon. Friend that this work should now be resumed. This will naturally mean a great deal of consultation between the Department and the Mines Inspectorate and both sides of the industry. I think the Committee will like to know that the essential preparatory work is taking place so that when the opportunity for bringing in a Bill occurs at some time in the future the Department will be ready.
1020
Time is running very short, and I am afraid that there are many questions which I have had to leave unanswered. I would simply conclude by saying this to the Committee, that the debate has, I think, shown the growth of all four industries in the group; that they are thriving, and that they are contributing nobly and successfully to the essential needs of the community. That is their object. That is what they are out to do, and that is what we, for our part, intend to ensure that they have the facilities for doing—to serve the public.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—[Mr. Butcher.]— put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION
10.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
I think it would be convenient to the House if I introduced these estimates very briefly, and then, if the House desired it, I could answer any points that might be raised. First of all, we ought to be most grateful that this debate is taking place at this relatively early hour, for my memory of these debates since the war is that they have usually started somewhere near midnight, on one side or the other.
I think the House is aware that this is not public money with which we are dealing tonight. It is what might be called a foundation or trust which has to meet its expenses and pay its benefits from its income. The income comes from estates at Greenwich and in other parts of London, some 20,000 acres in the north of England, and also from investments.
It will be seen from the estimates this year that we estimate for an increase in income. That is due to increases in rents due to improvements and new agreements, and to economies that we

1021
have made. That increase is being applied to more benefits; that is to say, more pensions, more widows' pensions and more education grants. We now give a total of nearly 2,000 pensions and grants.
Before concluding, there are two very short points on which I should like to ask the assistance and help of hon. Members. The first is with regard to education grants. We could give more of these grants to the children of seamen and marines, so if hon. Members know of any deserving cases, either in their constituencies or elsewhere, I should be most grateful if they would bring them to the notice of the Director of Greenwich Hospital or myself.
The other point is with regard to the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) took a great personal interest in this school, as I do myself, and I think that he and our predecessors would agree that probably one of the most pleasant duties of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is to watch over the progress of this inspiring school.
First, let me assure the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) that we are not going to spend less on this school this year, as it might look from the Estimates. In fact, last year we under-spent on the school, and we have made economies in the running of it, so that really we are spending more. We want to make quite certain that the money spent on this school at Holbrook goes, as far as possible, towards the education and amenities for the boys.
I invite the attention of hon. Members to the school, and I will place some information about it in the Library. It is primarily for the sons of seafaring families. It is a boarding school, giving a good general education, with a naval background. A very high proportion of those who entered gained the General Certificate of Education last year. There is no compulsion to enter the Navy, although 65 did last year, which was over one-third of those who were leaving. There is one cadet now at Dartmouth, and several others in the last year or so gained commissioned rank through other channels. I think the House will be interested to know that at the prize-giving this year, to which I am going in a week or two, the prizes are being presented by
1022
an "old boy" who is a serving vice-admiral.
I should like to say that we are very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who have served on the management committee of this school for several years. We are most grateful for their help and for the continued interest they have shown. I commend these Estimates to the House.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. W. J. Edwards: I do not think that this statement need take up much of the time of the House. Prior to 1950 a similar statement was presented every year for eight years to the House for debate. In 1950 the present First Lord of the Admiralty felt it his duty to criticise the statement, and in 1951 the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty found it necessary to have a debate on the' statement of Greenwich Hospital.
I cannot see any difference between this statement and that of 1950. Perhaps the present Parliamentary Secretary and the present First Lord of the Admiralty felt that it was necessary while they were in opposition to try to find some fault in the administration of the Greenwich Hospital while it was under the control of the Labour Government.
There are one or two points which I should like to make in connection with this statement. I agree that there is not much with which to find fault. The Parliamentary Secretary has already referred to the fact that there are to be more grants by way of pensions. I should like to draw attention to page 2 of the Statement concerning the item of expenditure which deals with property in Greenwich, as a result of which I notice that the estimate for 1951–52 of £13,450 is reduced to £10,750 this year, a reduction of £2,700. Whether this is due to the policy of the Government in restricting work or not, I do not know, but I should like to find out exactly what that reduction means—whether it is a reduction in necessary repairs to buildings or whether it relates to past policy. It seems rather a big item to reduce the expenditure by £2,700.
When we compare 1952–53 with 1951–52, I notice that, so far as the Hospital School, Holbrook, is concerned.

1023
although there is a reduction in expenditure this year—which the Parliamentary Secretary said is really not a reduction —they have gone to the extent of employing a supervisor at £300 a year, which they never had before. What sort of supervisor are they going to get for £300 a year? I should like to know whether that amount is to go on top of somebody else's salary and whether that person is called a supervisor because of that.
On page 5 of the Statement, it will be found that in 1950–51 the number of boys was 641 compared with 648 in 1949–50. I rather suspect that this year the number may be lower than 641. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who is not in his place tonight, although he is usually on these occasions, would certainly draw attention to that point, and I should like to get some information from the Parliamentary Secretary on it.
I should like also to have an assurance that, in regard to the amount of money to be spent on Greenwich Hospital and Holbrook School and in allowing a reasonable number of boys to attend the school, the policy of the present Government is no different from that of the last Government. If the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to let me have answers to the points which I have raised, I do not think the discussion need take too long.
10.10 p.m.
Mr. W. M. F. Vane: My comments, which will be very brief, refer to the estates in the north of England, and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not feel that he can comment in reply tonight he may think the suggestions worth considering before the estimates for next year are presented.
First, I want to comment on the question of expenditure on the estates in the north of England. I am not questioning the figure, which happens in this case to be more than the amount spent last year. When estimates for the management of property of this sort are prepared, the expenditure ought to be broken down under two headings, the first to maintain the existing annual value and the second which will bear interest or additional rent and, hence, amounts to improvements.
1024
I am sure all hon. Members would like to know whether it is the policy of the Government to improve these estates in the north of England little by little. and to increase the annual revenue to be obtained from them, or whether the figure of £13,850 is what is considered necessary to maintain the existing rent and do no more than that. An important principle underlies that comment.
My second point is a more general one. These estates are of very great interest, and not least to hon. Members of this House, since I believe they came into the possession of Greenwich Hospital through the attainder of one of the forebears of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) who backed the wrong horse at the time of the Jacobite Rebellions. While he and his family are the losers, the 641 boys born on the establishment and those receiving pensions through the centuries have been the gainers, and I am sure they would all like us to express our gratitude to him.
The area of the estates was given as 20,000 acres. The estates have one feature which I believe to be unique in this country, and that is that many of the farms are not let on the sort of lease which is common in Scotland, nor on the annual tenancy agreement which is common in England, but are let for a very small ground rent for a very long term of years, in some cases several hundred years. I know no other estate in this country which may be managed on that principle.
It would be interesting to know whether the £24,000 represents the full annual value of the 20,000 acres, or whether it represents the full annual value of only a part of it and a peppercorn rent for the remainder. In fact, can we look forward at some future date to a substantial reversionary value, because it may well be that a very large sum will accrue? It would be useful for us to know that next year, even if we cannot be told this year, and I hope the estimates for the next year will give a little more information on both the points which I have raised.
10.14 p.m.
Sir Herbert Williams: For about 20 years until October, 1944, this statement had not been discussed. I raised the issue that year, and the results

1025
were most beneficial. The Board of Admiralty are, in effect, the trustees of the school, and up to that time they had rather neglected their duties. As a result of that very useful debate, in which the present First Lord of the Admiralty and I took part, and in which one or two other hon. Gentlemen joined, a very drastic reform was brought about in the administration of the school, which is a very large one, having 641 boys.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it is that he was so economical or cheeseparing in regard to the cost per boy. It will be seen on page 5 of the Report that in 1945–46 the cost per boy was £173 5s. It is estimated for this year that it will be £206, and, whatever may be said about the cost of living. I am quite satisfied that it has gone up pro rata more than the difference between £173 and £206. I hope that in administering this school my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary have not been too cheeseparing and that the boys are not being treated inadequately
An interesting point was raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite about getting a supervisor for £300. I do not know what union he belongs to, but I do not think we will get a very good supervisor for £300 a year today. I hope there will be some comment on that because it seems rather small, particularly when set against an infirmary sister at £342 and who is given furnished quarters and her board. I was wondering whether the supervisor has furnished accommodation. I am afraid not. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman opposite must bear in mind that he probably fixed the rate of pay, and so he must not absolve himself from the responsibility for the payment of this supervisor. I think I am right in saying that the rate is the same as last year.
Mr. W. J. Edwards: No, there was no rate last year. This is an additional appointment.
Sir H. Williams: I apologise, I did not know it was an additional appointment. I should like to know what they are supervising anyhow, because if the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) got on without a supervisor, I wonder why my hon. and gallant Friend has to have a rather underpaid one. That is a legitimate point to raise.
1026
The real issue I want to raise is whether the Board of Admiralty are satisfied that they are now administering this important school properly, because the Board of Admiralty have a few jobs on as well, and it was in the interests of the people that some of us raised this issue in 1944—the first time it had been raised in 20 years. I hope that this school is receiving proper attention, I do not say from the whole of the Board of Admiralty, but from some of them, and that they go down now and then and give it the "once-over" to make sure it is properly conducted.
10.18 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: I shall detain the House for one minute only. I was interested in the statement of the Minister that there was difficulty in filling all the places at this school. That is abnormal in a state school at the present moment, and I hope the Minister will say a word or two more about the method of selection and the means that he adopts to let the public know about the places there are at this school.
Will the Minister tell us the age of entry and the financial burden that is placed upon the parents whose child has secured a place; and what information he can convey to the local education authorities about the places that are obtainable in this school so that we may see that the local education authorities, who have numbers of pupils who could profit by the education that takes place at this excellent school, may see that the children under their care have an opportunity of going there? I come from a town where we have to dissuade many boys from going to sea, because we could almost supply the Navy and the Merchant Navy with personnel if the young lads of Southampton who are keen to go to sea went to sea. Let us hope the Minister will give us a little more useful information on this subject.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) commiserated with me upon the forfeiture of the Derwentwater estates, which would not have been mine, anyway. I would return the compliment by commiserating with him upon a less grievous injury which he has apparently suffered, namely, the damage to his arm.

1027
I ought to disclose at the outset what almost amounts to a personal, though not financial, interest in this connection, for two reasons. First, that the Travers' Foundation, which forms part of Greenwich Hospital Endowment, was formerly applied to the Naval Knights of Windsor. There are no more Naval Knights at Windsor, and if there were, it is a matter of conjecture whether they would record their votes in my favour.
Secondly, I come to something of a more personal nature. It was two ancestors of mine, James and Charles Radclyffe who, by the part they played in 1715 and 1745, lost their heads and their Derwentwater title and their estates. The revenue from the estates was taken by the Government and applied to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. The events which took place at that time are not without interest. They involved special legislation and, if the House will bear with me for two or three minutes, I will recite them, if only because, had those events not taken place, we should not now be discussing a substantial portion of the Greenwich Hospital Accounts and, in particular, we should not see it estimated for the year ending 31st March, 1953, that the rents of farms and lands of the property in the north of England be £19,960.
Lord Derwentwater was tried in Westminster before the Privy Council in 1715, and condemned to death. Immense pressure was put upon Sir Robert Walpole to reprieve him, and, as a matter of fact, the Motion in this House demanding his reprieve was defeated only by the narrow majority of 162 to 155.
The legal position in respect of the Government's seizure of the estates appears to have caused some concern. By the Act of Attainder, James Radclyffe could only forfeit his life interest in the estates, and his son was perfectly entitled, by an Act of 1708, to claim them. However, just before his death in 1731, special legislation was introduced which debarred from any benefit of the Act of 1708 any child born abroad—as he was—whose father stood attainted at the time of his birth. That was probably one of the earliest examples of retrospective legislation. It was introduced for the specific purpose of enabling the Government of the day to seize and administer the estates because the existing legislation was not sufficient to enable them to do so.
1028
In 1865 the estates were transferred to the Lords of the Admiralty. It is interesting, though difficult, to compare the rents of that time with whose which appear in the accounts today. In 1735 the acreage was, so far as I know, about 37,000 and the rents were only £6,000. By 1816, the Lords of the Admiralty had increased the revenue to £43,000, including £15,000 income from mines, though I doubt whether I am comparing like with like. Between 1832 and 1884, part of the estates were sold by the Greenwich Hospital Trustees for the sum of £1,200,000. I imagine that a considerable portion of that sum is represented by the investments in the Accounts today.
Anyway, the Admiralty are to be congratulated upon maintaining, and indeed increasing, the income from these estates throughout the years. How very different the story might otherwise have been. For the property and the capital would surely have dissolved in the form of Death Duties and have been spent by different Chancellors of the Exchequer for different purposes.
I end on a gruesome note, for the remains of James Radclyffe suffered a somewhat rough fate. When a deputation of the Greenwich Hospital Commissioners on an official inspection in 1805 went to Northumberland and had one of the coffins opened, the body was found in a state of complete preservation. A blacksmith drew several teeth from the corpse and sold them at half a crown each.
I thought the House might be interested to learn that the history behind these Accounts is a little less dry and categorical than the bare items of expenditure would seem to suggest.
10.26 p.m.
Commander Noble: I think the House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) to give us that interesting history. I will answer one or two of his points in a moment, but I will first deal briefly with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards). He said that it was not until 1950 that any debates took place on these estimates. That is not quite correct, because my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said that he initiated a debate in 1944 and, if my memory serves me aright, there has been

1029
one every year since, sometimes due to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who is not in his place tonight, and sometimes due to other hon. Members.
With regard to the smaller amount which will be spent on the property at Greenwich next year, we have a big building programme to come on in the future as a result of houses that were demolished in the war. Since the war, however, we have done a considerable amount of repair work and war damage work which is now coming to an end. That is the reason for the decrease in the money that is being spent. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the First Lord and I have raised one or two points on this matter in the past, and have perhaps criticised the administration, but I am sure he will agree that that is what the Opposition is for, and that is what he himself has been doing tonight.
The supervisor of the Royal Hospital School at Holbrook represents a saving, because this supervisor replaces a housekeeper and a clerk. With regard to the number of boys at Holbrook, we aim at maintaining 660, which is the full number in this school.
Mr. W. J. Edwards: On the point of the supervisor, is it seriously suggested that the supervisor now being employed is replacing two other people at a cost of £300 a year?
Commander Noble: The lady in question is a housekeeper in that sense of the word. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman prefers the word "housekeeper," perhaps the lady herself prefers the word "supervisor." I do not know, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an economy in the administration of the school.
As I said earlier, we are trying to cut down on the non-teaching staff and on the overheads of buildings which, as the hon. Member knows, are on the same scale as the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. We want to make quite certain that the maximum amount is spent on the boys. Both he and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) asked about the boys.
We are doing everything to publicise the school, and that is one of the reasons
1030
why I raised it in the debate tonight in the same way as my predecessor did last year. We make quite certain that some mention of this school is made in nearly all magazines that reach the seafaring families of this country. The reason why we are not up to numbers at the moment is that it is a little difficult in a school like this to realise how many boys are to come up each time, because they have to have special qualifications, and also at what age they have to leave school because many of them go to the Navy quite young as boys.
The hon. Member for Stepney asked various questions about the school. If I may, I will give him a little pamphlet after this debate and will also place one in the Library, as I do not wish to delay the House. I can assure him quite categorically that our policy in running the school is the same as was his. It is a very fine school, and we want to make certain that it attracts the boy for whom it is designed and gives him the best possible start in life.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), we give in these estimates the information we are required to give by statute. But the estimates have to be read with the accounts for this year, which of course will not be produced until September. Our policy at the moment is one of improvement. As I said in my opening remarks, we are obtaining increased rents due to the fact that we have improved the cottages and farms. Ours is a continuous policy of improving the estate. The rent figures given in the estimates are normal rents for the property and are not "certain rents plus peppercorn rents." I think I have answered the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East except to say that there is no cheese-paring going on other than that we are striving to economise in what one might call overheads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor referred to the Travers Foundation and the Naval Knights at Windsor. Perhaps I might be allowed to add something to what he said, because it is a rather romantic story. Mr. Samuel Travers, who was Auditor-General to the Prince of Wales, in his will of 1724 desired to set up a habitation of seven gentlemen at Windsor. They were to

1031
be either superannuated or disabled lieutenants of English men-of-war. It is laid down in the Foundation that they should be:
"Single men, without children, inclined to lead a virtuous life."
Mr. Travers was leaving nothing to chance. These gentlemen were to be
"… inclined to lead a virtuous, studious and decent life, to be removed if they give occasion for scandal."
In 1892, unfortunately, it was found difficult to secure persons eligible for appointment, and I regret to say that the corporation was dissolved in 1892 by the Naval Knights of Windsor (Dissolution) Act. The property disposed of now brings in an income of about £3,000 a year, which is paid out in what are known as Travers pensions. I do not think I should be called upon to answer for the Government of the day for the rather sordid story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, or indeed for the Board of Admiralty of that day; but I might assure him that the Board were not quite so bad as he painted them, because they paid an allowance to the widow of the last male of the line up to about 1861.
Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that they had to be single men. How could one of them leave a widow?
Commander Noble: The right hon. Gentleman has not realised that I have passed on from the Naval Knights of Windsor to my hon. Friend's ancestors.
There is only one other thing I may add. Under the foundation "widowers" were looked upon as being single men within the meaning of the Act.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Resolved,
  That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Nottingham South and Rushcliffe) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, he approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Stockton-on-Tees and Sedgefield) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, he approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Swindon and Devizes) Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Worcester and South Worcestershire) Order. 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th May, be approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

MEAT PRICES
10.37 p.m.
Mr. Charles Royle: I beg to move:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Prices) (Great Britain) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1122). dated 6th June, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be annulled.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss the following Prayer, which is in identical terms and relates to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member suggest that we take the three Prayers together or only the first two?
Mr. Royle: Only the first two, Sir.
The purpose of the Order we are now discussing which we on this side of the House are praying against is to increase the meat prices which followed the subsidy reductions announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. The increased meat prices are now actually in operation, and it is our desire tonight to show reason why the Order should be annulled so that we might go back to the prices which prevailed before the Order was tabled.

1033
As it has been done so often before, it is not my intention to quote from speeches of Lord Wootton, or the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary. We have done that so often, and it is generally accepted that they made a mistake in their Election speeches. I shall therefore resist the temptation to quote from them again. In fairness to the Government, I should point out that the Order which we are discussing ought to be considered with Order No. 1121 which was placed on the Table at the same time, because we do not see the whole picture if we do not consider them together. The previous Order was laid so as to increase the ration.
I can see the Government's point of view in tabling two Orders at the same time, one of which increases the meat ration and the other increasing the price of meat. But I do not understand, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply will make it clear, why it was necessary to table an Order relating to the actual increase in the meat ration. For many years we have been accustomed to ration fluctuations. In 1951, for example, the ration varied from 10d. at one time to 2s. 2d. at another. And that was on the old prices.
Obviously there is nothing sacrosanct in a ration of 1s. 2d. or 1s. 7d. a week. All that was necessary, so far as I can understand it, was for the Wholesale Meat Association, or the retail buying groups, to be notified that it was possible to give more or less according to the seasonal supplies. This makes me suspect that these two Orders were tabled at the same time for the purpose of deceiving the housewife by hiding the price increase beneath the ration increase. I think the Government hoped that the housewife, because she felt she is getting a little more meat, would forget that she would have to pay a great deal more for it.
The increase in the meat ration which we are now considering is from 1s. 2d. a week to 1s. 7d. The average increase in price is 4d. a pound. On some joints it is more, on others it is not as much, but I think the Ministry have done a good job in their averaging because the overall increase is only 4d. But it should be made clear that the actual increase in the ration is only 2d. or thereabouts. I can remember the illustrious father of the present Minister of Food, who became
1034
well-known for the catch phrase "Nine-pence for fourpence" It may be that his son in turn will be remembered for the catch phrase "Twopence for fivepence," because he is charging an extra fivepence for twopenny worth of meat. This Prayer is aimed at showing how this Order affects the consumer, particularly those in the low wages groups.
Mr. Ellis Smith: In Hankey Park.
Mr. Royle: Yes, in Hankey Park, which is a very well-known part of my constituency. Although there is part of the subsidy still remaining, meat prices are now about 60 per cent. above those in the days immediately before the war. The sharp increase which has just been imposed on the housewife is hitting her, and her family, very hard indeed. Many butchers are no longer rationing their customers—and I say that with some knowledge of the situation; they do not need to do it, particularly in mixed districts, where there is one section of the community who can afford the price of meat, and another section who can no longer afford it. It is no use the Minister coming to the House, as he did last week —I think it was last week—and saying that these rationed foods are being taken up completely, or almost wholly taken up.
I suggest very seriously to the Minister that a large mass of our people today are refusing rationed goods because they are simply unable to pay for them. Therefore, those who can afford these foods are having an advantage in the butchers' shops and other shops selling other commodities. They are reaping a benefit to the detriment of those who can no longer afford the extra meat.
The Parliamentary Secretary may well argue that the Labour Government's last Minister of Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Maurice Webb), also increased the meat ration in 1951; but he did it on the eve of a General Election.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Increased the price.
Mr. Royle: Thank you; he increased the price. But that was just before a General Election. We on this side are often accused of not doing things which might have reflected against us when

1035
elections were pending, but that last price increase took place only a short time before we went to the country.
Therefore, I say that doing what we did, at the time we did it, proved the necessity for the rise; and, let it be remembered that our price rise was as nothing compared with that now being suggested by the present Government. In fact, from 1945 to 1951, the total increases on the average cuts amounted to 7d. in 6¼ years. This Government increases the price by 4d. in eight months, and if it went on for 6¼ years, well, God forbid. At the present rate of increase, instead of it being 7d., it would be 3s. for 6¼ years. So, the Government have started well in keeping meat away from the people in greatest need of it.
There may be other arguments used opposite about our increase of the price of meat, but the 1951 increase was due to rises in the prices charged to us by our Dominions and by Argentina, and also by the increased home production costs. The House realises that these home production increases falling on the farmers and the home producers had to be met.
Mr. Osborne: 'Surely the two increases made by the Labour Government had to be imposed in order to keep within the ceiling imposed by Sir Stafford Cripps. The increases we are discussing have to be imposed in order to keep within the ceiling imposed by this year's Budget.
Mr. Royle: I am much obliged for that intervention. Let us remember that Sir Stafford Cripps imposed a ceiling which did not amount to a reduction, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a reduction in the food subsidies.
It was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who cut the food subsidies by £150 million. My right hon. Friend was compelled to increase meat prices as a direct result of the increased charges by the Argentine and the Dominions and the extra costs arising in home production. Thus, in the case of the Labour Government the price increase was absolutely unavoidable, whereas the 1952 increases are due directly to the cuts in the subsidy announced by the Chancellor of the
1036
Exchequer in his Budget speech and were, therefore, avoidable.
In order to try to indicate the case which I have to make, I will not simply state my own point of view but will quote from trade leaders on this question of price increases. The President of the National Federation of Meat Traders, the retail organisation, is reported as saying, on 26th May:
"I am certain that when the new prices come into operation we butchers will find that book debts will increase very drastically because the meat will have gone up to such a price that people will have difficulty in paying for it."
A prominent executive member of the same organisation, representing the South-Eastern part of England, said this on 16th June:
"In working class districts traders are already having difficulty in selling the higher priced cuts. The new range of prices will create an impossible position in many shops."
The Sheffield Meat Traders' Association passed a Resolution which contained these words:
"It would be in the best interests of the country if the prices of meat were maintained at a figure within the purchasing power of all sections of the community."
On 26th June, only last week, the Presi dent of the National Federation of Meat Traders said:
"Only this morning I was in my shop and a leg of Canterbury lamb came to 17s. To me that seemed a lot of money, and that is the view of the customer."
I am in entire agreement with those statements. and I say categorically that the lower income groups cannot buy rump steak at 3s. 4d. a lb. or sirloin at 3s. a lb. of lamp chops at 3s. 4d. a lb. In fact, the Government are saying to these lower income groups, "You buy the rougher cuts and the poorer quality if you can and leave the choice cuts to the expensive hotels and restaurants and the richer homes." There is no doubt about it; that is the way we can read these price increases.
I want to give three examples of what I feel these price increases mean, and I will take them from three cuts of meat: and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into these matters as I quote them. I take the most expensive cut—rump steak. Before the price rise, with a ration of 1s. 2d., and the price at 3s. a lb., a family of four would be able to receive

1037
1 lb. 9 oz. and would pay 4s. 8d. for it. With the price increase, the ration became 1s. 7d., and, with the meat at 3s. 4d. a lb., a family of four now get 1 lb. 14 oz. and they pay 6s. 4d. for it. So an additional 5 ozs. of meat for that family costs 1s. 8d.
Take a cheaper cut, brisket of beef. The ration was Is. 2d., and it was 1s. 2d. a lb. before the increase. A family of four got 4 lb., and paid 4s. 8d. With the ration increased, and the price increased to Is. 6d., they now get 4 lb. 4 oz. and pay 6s. for it., the ¼ lb. costing 1s. 4d. extra. For a leg of lamb, when the family got 4 lb. they paid 4s. 8d.; now they pay 2s. 10d. a lb. and get 2¼ lb. for 6s. 8d., and 4 oz. extra in that case costs 1s. 8d. more for that family.
We are seriously concerned about this state of affairs. Many thousands of people on the industrial areas are receiving wages of £6 weekly and less. I think about the man and wife with two children at school who are today, because of this rise in meat prices, and perhaps the 1s. 8d. worth of offal added to it, having to use one-fifteenth part of their income to provide a basis for four meals.
I think I can claim to speak not only for the consumers in the industrial areas but for the traders in this industry also. I know of their anxiety that because of these increased prices the ration will not be taken up by the people who need it most. I would warn the Parliamentary Secretary to look for a little transference of meat going on—for instance, a transference from the Old Kent Road to Mayfair and. in Manchester, from Ancoats to Dkisbury. That sort of thing may be going on even now. I am certain that it will occur before many weeks have elapsed. We are appalled at offal prices.
This Order, following a string of increases in many foods, is a severe blow at the purse of the housewife. It will strike a severe blow at the nutritional standards which the late Government built up. We are proud of those standards, and of the health of the people. Cuts in the Health Services and in the capacity to buy good food will deeply affect these standards. These increases make the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeals for wage claims restraint a mockery. I ask the House to reject this Order by supporting this
1038
Prayer, and so to show its contempt for this further attack on the people.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like, first, to ask why there is no representative from the Treasury on the Front Bench opposite? Why have we only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food? He is only doing what he is told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should not object if the Deputy Patronage Secretary intervened to speak for the Treasury.
Why has the Minister set the trade by the ears? The Minister said that he was doing exactly what we did before; but the circumstances are entirely different. The Chancellor had already announced this 4d. increase and the Minister could have had official consultation with the Federation. Why did not he receive a deputation from the traders as he was asked to do and why did he not send a copy of the Schedule to the traders before he sent it to the press? Why have these two resolutions from the Meat Traders' Federation on the record, condemning the Minister? Why should he be so flatfooted and upset so many people when he does anything so unpopular as this?
With regard to the price increases I should like to draw his attention to the statement made in the "Meat Traders' Journal," which said:
"All first quality home-killed cuts of beef with bone are up 4d., boneless top side, silverside, thick flank, sirloin and wing ribs are raised 6d. per lb. and items such as leg, shin, neck or clod sticking have been increased by 4d. and skirt by 2d. The popular cuts of mutton and lamb and practically all pork cuts are 6d. per lb. more. The biggest increase is 8d. a lb. on imported lamb chops, imported boneless leg, loin or best end of lamb. Cuts of veal are all 2d. per lb. more, boneless 4d."
How are we to get an average of 4d. a lb. on those figures? The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is going to work out at more than 4d.
I should like him to answer the following questions: Is it the Government's intention to eliminate the meat subsidy altogether? My hon. Friend referred to meat as bearing a subsidy. Is that, in fact, the case? If so, what is the unit subsidy on a lb. of meat? When the Chancellor made his statement the results of the Price Review were not known, and no

1039
conclusions had been reached. How much is allowed in this price increase for the increase due to the farmers under the Farm Prices Review?
What do the increases paid to the farmers under that Price Review mean in terms of a unit subsidy? If we pay increased prices for meat from the Argentine it will be reasonable to expect increased prices for meat from New Zealand and Australia. Will this mean that we shall have still further retail price increases?
Finally the Parliamentary Secretary has been saving meat which could have been put on the ration. I gather that the Ministry of Food have been putting imported meat into cold storage. By doing that they will be able to sell that meat later at an increased price. What has this meant in terms of subsidy? How much have they saved?
In the debate last week the Minister said:
"… the subsidy bill for the financial year 1952–53 is estimated at about £310 million. Our decision to time these price increases in this way may also be assisted by some change in world price levels, which are already apparent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1952; Vol. 503, c. 61.]
In other words, the Minister said that by putting off further price increases he was getting the benefit of the collapse in freight charges. There are some foods, such as some types of oils, oil seed and most animal feedingstuffs, which have been falling in price. In short he is saying, "I am reducing the food subsidy ceiling this year to £310 million. I am reducing it by £100 million and when I come to the further price increases what will be the position? The world prices of some foodstuffs will be falling and the cost of freight to the Ministry will be at least halved."
The Minister has said—and I quote his own figures; not those of the Parliamentary Secretary, which are often wrong—in reply to Questions that the present price increases, including meat, will save £129 million on food subsidies this year. So he has already saved £29 million over the £100 million, and he is looking forward later in the year to save money by the collapse in the freight charges and the fall in world food prices.
1040
In that case, why have the Minister and the Chancellor imposed these price increases, recouping already £129 million or, to quote the figure of the Parliamentary Secretary, considerably more?
Mr. Speaker: We must confine the debate to meat; otherwise, it will stray too wide on this Order.
Mr. Wiley: I have no desire to stray widely, Sir. I am only trying to put this in its proper context.
The case for this price increase and the cut in the subsidies has been the result of the fiscal policy of the present Government. That has led to a deliberate, conscious increase in the cost of living of the people. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical to ask people not to take the course to which they are naturally driven when such price increases are imposed upon them. I believe the desire of the Ministry goes farther. They intend, if they should have the opportunity, to decontrol before the supplies of meat will be adequate to meet the legitimate and proper demands of the people of this country.
That is not only my view. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), quoted the President of the Meat Traders' Association. I will also quote him. Mr. Curry recently said:
"I do feel that we have to face up to the fact that the present Government's policy is to end controls as soon as possible."
That is not a very enthusiastic welcome to the Government's intentions by the traders themselves. Mr. Curry has also said:
"These new prices will lead us to de-control sooner than otherwise."
That will be as anti-social and disastrous to the economic stability of this country as the present action of the Government.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), started his Prayer, if he will allow me to say so, rather offensively and aggressively. Indeed, he is rapidly acquiring a reputation as the greatest prayer in public in the country. I sometimes wonder why he is so persistent a prayer.
As the hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

1041
Food, he should know full well that these Prayers produce no results. When Prayers were put to him, they were met with a stony silence. Further, the hon. Gentleman knows the facts of this business. If he were a back bencher, who knew nothing about the world food situation, I could understand some of his Prayers, but he really does know the meat position. In producing the arguments which he has put before us tonight, and which his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) produced too, with much more reason and more fairly, he has not helped the poor people for whom his hon. Friend was sincerely pleading.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that last year his Government sent to the Argentine a Minister to argue the price of meat. As a result, meat prices had to be increased against the inclinations of hon. Members sitting on these benches. His Government had no choice in the matter because the people of the Argentine, with whom the Minister argued for about eight weeks, refused to sell us their meat at a cheap price.
They would not sell it as cheaply as we wanted, for this reason. Last year, the Argentine Government asked for an increase which the previous Government had to accept, to £128 a ton, which represented roughly 1s. a lb. At pre-war prices, it would have been roughly 4d. a lb. There were hon. Members in this House who said they would not be blackmailed by the Argentine into paying this higher price because it would cause them to impose higher prices, against which this Prayer is directed The Argentine said, quite rightly, that we were charging them five-and-a-half times as much for our coal, and that, if we did that, they were perfectly entitled to ask three times as much for their meat.
The two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Prayer are doing a great disservice to the ordinary people of this country by suggesting that by Government action cheaper meat will ever again be possible. It will not. We have to face the fact that meat will cost us a good deal more in the future—not less—whatever Government is in power. Meat that has been sold in the free market between Canada and America is fetching £400 a ton—which is roughly 3s. 6d. a pound.
1042
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, speaking with great feeling—which I appreciate—said that this Order would result in rationing meat by the purse, which he, supported by many of his hon. Friends, says is a great social evil. With that point of view I have a great deal of sympathy, but I wish to ask hon. Members if they think rationing by the purse is always and in every circumstance socially wrong, because if they do, they should say so; and if they say so, they should practise it themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "In what way?"]
There are hon. Members opposite, I believe, who not only believe in rationing by the purse for meat, but for clothes as well. Some go to Savile Row, some to Montague Burton's. Hon. Members can choose to which they go. In this House I have heard it said on many occasions that some hon. Members cannot afford to go into the Dining Room because meat and other prices are so dear. They have to eat in the Tea Room. This is rationing by the purse. Some hon. Members opposite can go into the Dining Room and feed, some go into the Tea Room, and when we have all-night Sittings, I have seen hon Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite go home in fine cars, while others have to walk—
Mr. Speaker: This is really getting very wide of the subject of this Order.
Mr. Osborne: I shall not pursue the point further, Sir, except to say that hon. Members must honestly face this dilemma: do they really believe that we should all have absolute equality in meat and other things? If so, they should say so, and start to practise it themselves.
My last point is that, with the Australians not being able to send us meat in the future as they did in the past, with greater demand being made on meat supplies from New Zealand in the future, with Argentina sending us only a fifth of what they sent us before the war, there will have to be a greater reduction in the supply of meat, and prices will go up. Hon. Members should go to their constituents and say that our only hope of getting cheaper meat is to produce our own in greater abundance and at a cheaper rate.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I only want to make a few small points, because I notice that there are four lists in the First Schedule. I see that home-killed sirloin and wing ribs are 3s. a lb. In Scotland boned brisket is 2s. 6d. a pound. If I remember rightly —and my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—in between the wars there was a vast gap, and much greater than this between brisket and sirloin. I believe I am right in saying that sirloin at 3s. a lb. is not more than 50 per cent. above the pre-war price, while best quality home-killed beef and brisket seems about 150 per cent. above the pre-war price—at least in Scotland.
Brisket in England and Wales is 1s. 10d. a lb. In Scotland it is 2s. 6d. a lb. Scotland is paying more. Beef, lamb and mutton, and pork in England and Wales and in Scotland are nearly the same price. But when we come to beef we get this huge gap. Why? Why should a Scots working-class housewife have to pay 8d. a lb more for boneless brisket than the housewife in England and Wales?
I know very well that Scottish beef is far superior to English beef. If that is the case why is it that fillet steak is 3s. a lb. and the same price in Scotland? The housewife in Scotland who can afford to buy the more expensive cuts pays the same as the English housewife, but the working-class people in Scotland who have to buy the coarser joints have to pay more than the working-class people in England.
I ask the Minister to take this Order back and remedy this state of affairs. When the Scottish housewives learn about this the Housewives League may be re-formed in Scotland and strong protests will be made to the Parliamentary Secretary if he allows this discrepancy to continue. I beg the hon. Gentleman to change this Schedule and bring Scottish brisket within the same price level as English.
11.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) moved this Prayer in a reasoned speech, directing his remarks not so much to the application of the
1044
increase to the various joints but to certain general considerations. He began by asking why it was necessary by Order to change the ration from time to time. Would it not be preferable, he asked, to modify the ration according to the circumstances of the moment by increasing or decreasing supplies through the wholesale channels.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is abundantly necessary—I am not seeking to score a debating point here—for the housewife to know at any time what is the ration to which she is entitled. So it becomes necessary for the quantities of meat going through the wholesalers to the retail buying groups and the retail butchers to be carefully controlled so that there may be uniformity in the ration and in distribution of meat to provide that ration.
The second point the hon. Gentleman raised was the coincidence of the increases in the meat ration and in meat prices. He stated the position accurately, as my right hon. and gallant Friend stated it; the increase of ration is approximately 2d., and the increase of price approximately 3d. per week. I say approximately 2d., for if we measure the increase at the old prices it comes to slightly less than 2d.—1d. and 18/22d.—and at the new prices a small fraction over 2d.
The hon. Gentleman then raised the larger question of the effect on the lower wage consumer, a point to which his hon. Friend referred in terms of greater indignation than argument when, in his speech, he sought to prove his anger rather than his case.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) was in my position when an increase of 3d. as compared with the present 4d. was applied. He may recall the procedure used in translating into terms of retail prices an increase per lb. which is applied to the whole carcase, and indeed to all kinds of carcase. It is not an easy task. When the increase was 3d. the principles applied were approximately the same as those applied now.
Firstly, the task is the very difficult one of seeking, as it were, to imitate the free market by finding what is the proper relationship among prices for the different

1045
kinds of joint. That was done on the advice of the trade. The hon. Member waxed indignant about the fact that the Meat Traders' Federation itself was not officially consulted for this purpose. What was done was exactly the same as was done in his day. The Minister consulted a representative committee of persons, but not a committee appointed by the Federation itself. Among those people were names well-known in the trade: Mr. Baldwin, a past president of the Federation comes to mind; Mr. Salisbury was another. There were proper consultations with the people deemed by the Minister to be the appropriate people for the purpose.
Then came the second consideration; in seeking to distribute the 4d. increase, firstly throughout the wholesale field and, secondly, to the retail cuts, a high share of the increase was placed as far as possible on certain of the more expensive cuts of meat and a lesser share on some of the cheaper cuts. I do not claim any especial virtue for that. It was the principle which our predecessors sought to apply. But the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would wish to have it both ways in his examples, as in the examples given by the hon. Member for Salford, West. He takes certain of the more expensive cuts and refers to the substantial increases in the prices of those, ignoring the fact that those increases which exceed the average make possible the increases below the average for certain of the cheaper cuts.
Mr. Bence: The increases on the cheaper cuts are more than the increases on the expensive cuts.
Mr. Boyle: We quoted the low-priced cuts in demand in working-class areas.
Mr. Bence: Half-a-crown a lb. for brisket, which was 6d. a lb. before the war.
Dr. Hill: I am coming to the particular and peculiar problem of brisket in Scotland a little later, and I assure the hon. Member that I shall deal faithfully with his point. The hon. Member for Salford, West referred to rump steak.
Mr. Hoyle: And to brisket.
Dr. Hill: The hon. Member referred to rump steak, which is one of the most
1046
expensive cuts. He drew one of his pictures with rump steak as the central theme, and when I deal with that I hope he will not tell me that he did not mention the more expensive cuts.
The hon. Member did mention this more expensive cut and drew attention to the increase it had suffered. In examining these increases the hon. Member. perhaps alone in this House, understands the technical details of the butchery industry. He will appreciate that the 4d. average, when applied to meat without hone, automatically becomes a figure of approximately 5¼d. as one quarter of the carcase is bone and that remains at the modest price of 2d. a pound, no increase having been added.
He will also appreciate that in applying the increase to the various kinds of meat —beef, pork, home-killed lamb, and so on—the amount added to each of these is not necessarily 4d. but is, in fact, a different figure this year as it was when this was done last year. The point I stress is that mitigating the severity of the increase in the lower-priced cuts is inevitably followed by more substantial increases above the average in certain of the higher-priced cuts.
May I refer to the question of Scottish brisket. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whisky?"] Brisket was the word I used. The hon. Member has no doubt examined the Scottish Schedules as a whole and compared them with those of England and Wales and he will appreciate that they are different. Appetites for different joints in Scotland differ from the corresponding appetites in England, and the technique of cutting in Scotland differs from the technique in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure the hon. Member that the average increase on the carcase is no higher in Scotland than in England. In both cases it amounts to 4d. per lb. If in a particular cut such as he has quoted the increase is substantially higher than 4d., in other parts of the Schedule there is a compensating advantage to Scotland.
Mr. Bence: But all the rest are the same, bar brisket.
Dr. Hill: What the hon. Member has not appreciated is that the descriptions of the various joints differ in Scotland. If it is any reassurance to the House,

1047
may I say that on this occasion, as on the last occasion, any attempt to apply this average increase to the wide variety of cuts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is bound to be to some extent provisional and to be looked at again in the light of experience and this will be done.
The point was made that the price increase, which amounts to some 3d. per ration, will make people unable to take up the ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "That has already happened."] The new increase in price has obtained for some three weeks. I am not going to prophesy that will not happen—
Mr. Arthur Lewis Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) rose—
Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue—there is no evidence that it has happened yet. Was there any evidence that in September last, when the ration was increased to 2s., it was not taken up?
Mr. Lewis: Did the hon. Gentleman not read the speech of his right hon. and gallant Friend over the week-end? The Minister of Food himself stated that rations are not now being taken up? How does he explain that?
Dr. Hill: I am referring to the meat ration and its take-up in relation to the increase in prices which came into operation three weeks ago, and I am saying that as yet there is no evidence that the ration is not being taken up.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that, although the whole of the meat ration is being taken up at the shops, it is not going to each person registered in the shop? I am informed authoritatively by the Co-operatives societies in my constituency that they are having to get rid of more meat to people who can afford to buy it than let it rot in the shops.
Dr. Hill: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? He is saying that at the Co-operative shops in his district the law is being broken, and that meat is not going to the persons for whom it is intended, but is being diverted to
1048
other persons. I am not denying that there is a possibility of a price level which will result in a lower take-up of meat among some sections of the community. What I am now saying is that we should not proceed by general statement. In the three weeks during which this increase has been in operation there has been no evidence that the meat ration is not being taken up.
If we take an example, and I admit it is an extreme example, of a cheap but good cut, scrag and breast of lamb—its name may not be attractive, but it is a pleasant enough cut—previously it was 1s. ld. a lb. and 17 oz. could be obtained on a Is. 2d. ration. Now it is 1s. 2d. a lb. and 22 oz. can be obtained on a 1s. 7d. ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much bone?"] The point to which attention has not been drawn in the discussion of applying the 4d. average is that the increase in some cheaper cuts is less than 4d. and the ration, based on the maximum expenditure on meat is increased for the purchasers of cheaper cuts at the expense of those buying the more expensive cuts.
Finally, I must refer to the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North in relation to the subsidy adjustment. He knows as well as I do that there is a subsidy examination month by month. He knows that in general it represents the trading loss of the Ministry. He knows that each month new changes of one kind or another, both falls and increases in price, come into the calculation. To answer his queries as precisely as possible, the continuing unit subsidy on meat is 1½d. a lb. He will appreciate that its future level depends on the outcome of the Argentine negotiations and other factors, but I give that calculation as the best that can be made now. He asked what, in total terms, the continuing subsidy for meat would be. For 1952–53 it is approximately £20 million.
As the hon. Member for Salford, West said in moving this Prayer, this Order derives from the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The operation and application of the increase has followed the lines laid down last year. The hon. Gentleman referred to the courage of the previous Government in increasing the price of meat immediately before a

1049
General Election. In fact, they increased it in July last; some months before the Election, but I merely make that point to correct the statement. This Order follows the line taken when the price was increased by 4d. in April, 1949, in applying the increase to the wholesale and then to the retail level.
I can understand hon. Members opposite quarrelling with the decision to lower the ceiling on food subsidies; but, within that decision, this Order represents a reasonable and equitable distribution of the higher charge between the various cuts which, in the total, constitute the retail meat supply.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how the housewife can tell whether she is getting first-quality or second-quality meat, and whether it is home-killed or imported?
Dr. Hill: It always was a problem for the housewife to decide if her meat was
home-killed or imported, or of first or second quality. The more discriminating the housewife, the greater the success of her buying; but the situation is not aggravated by control except in one respect. That is, that whereas in pre-war days there were many price levels in, say. heifer and steer beef, it becomes necessary under control to group items formerly of distinctive description and price. To that extent, control affects the situation, but, for the rest, it is for the housewife to be discriminating, and the trader honest, if fair play is to be done.
Question put.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Prices) (Great Britain) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1122) dated 6th June, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be annulled.
The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 148.

Division No. 191.]

AYES

[11.38 p.m.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hayman, F. H.

Rhodes, H.

Awbery, S. S.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Robens, Rt. Hon A

Bartley, P.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Bence, C. R

Hobson, C. R.

Ross, William

Bing, G. H. C.

Hoy, J. H.

Royle, C.

Blackburn, F.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Blyton, W. R.

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S)

Shackleton, E. A. A

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Short, E. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Broughten, Dr. A. D. D.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Keenan, W.

Slater. J.

Burton, Miss F. E.

King, Dr. H. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Champion, A. J.

Lewis, Arthur

Sparks, J. A

Collick, P. H.

Logan, D G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

MacColl, J E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McGhee, H. G.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Main waring, W. H.

Usborne, H. C

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Manuel, A. C.

Wallace, H. W

Deer, G.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Weitzman, D

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mitchison, G. R

West, D. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)

Moody, A. S.

While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Morley, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Field, W J

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Wigg, George

Foot, M. M

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J

Wilkins, W. A.

Forman, J C.

Oswald, T.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Freeman, John (Watford)

Pargiter, G. A

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Gibson, C. W.

Parker, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Pearson, A

Williams, W T. (Hammersmith, S)

Grey, C. F.

Peart, T. F

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wyatt, W. L

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Porter, G.

Yates, V. F.

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.) Hannan, W.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hargreaves, A.

Proctor, W. T.

Mr. Popplewell and

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Mr. Kenneth Robinson

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Allan, R. A (Paddington, S.)

Baldwin, A. E.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Alport, C. J. M.

Banks, Col. C.

Birch, Nigel

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Bishop, F. P.

Arbuthnot, John

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Black, C. W.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Boothby, R. J. G

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Pilkington, Capt. R A.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Powell, J. Enoch

Billiard, D. G.

Hutohinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Ronton, D. L. M.

Butcher, H. W.

Kaberry, D.

Roper, Sir Harold

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Cary, Sir Robert

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Scott, R. Donald

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Shepherd, William

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Simon, J. E. S, (Middlesbrough, W)

Crouch, R. F.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Soames, Capt. C.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lucas. Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Davidson, Viscountess

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Storey, S.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Dormer, P. W.

McKibbin, A. J.

Summers, G. S

Doughty, C. J. A.

Maclay, Hon. John

Sutcliffe, H.

Drayton, G. B.

Maclean, Fitzroy

Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

Erroll, F. J.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Fell, A.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Thomas, P. J. M (Conway)

Finlay, Graeme

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Fisher, Nigel

Markham, Major S. F.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Maude, Angus

Tilney, John

Fletcher-Cooke, C

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S L. C

Touche, Sir Gordon

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Turner, H F. L

Fort, R.

Mellor, Sir John

Turton, R. H.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Molson, A. H. E.

Vane, W. M. F.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Vosper, D. F.

Gower, H. R.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Harden, J. R. E.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Wellwood, W.

Harrison, Col. J. H (Eye)

Oakshott, H. D,

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Hay, John

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim N)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Heath, Edward

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Osborne, C

Wills, G.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Partridge, E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hollis, M. C.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Hope, Lord John

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

reyion, J. W. W.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Redmayne.

Horobin, I. M.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat (Prices) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952. No. 1123) dated 6th June, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June. be annulled.—[Mr. Royle]
put, and negatived.

SITES, HANDSWORTH (SCHOOL BUILDING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Butcher.]
11.46 p.m.
Sir Edward Boyle: The subject which I wish to raise tonight is the confirmation by the Minister of Education of the Birmingham (Church Lane, Handsworth) Compulsory Purchase Order, 1951. This Order was made by the Birmingham Corporation at the request of the local education authority. The land affected consists of approximately eight acres lying between
1052
Church Lane and the Handsworth Wood Road. This land is required by the Birmingham Corporation for the erection of two secondary modern schools—a three-form girls' school and a four-form mixed school. Whereas the girls' school is urgent, and has been budgeted for in the current financial year, the Corporation is ready to admit that the second school is unlikely to be erected for five years, and, indeed, probably not for 10 years.
On 13th and 14th December, 1951, a public inquiry into this Order was held at the Council House, Birmingham, by Mr. H. W. Standring, of H. G. Godfrey Payton and Son, 25, High Street, Warwick, and he took evidence from the Birmingham Corporation and from the objectors to the Order. As one might expect, four out of the five objectors were the owners of the plots of which the site consists. Two of the largest plots, namely, those of Mr. Scott of Oaklands, Church Lane, and of Mr. Elvins, of 92, Handsworth Wood Road, are being cultivated only to a limited extent.

1053
The third plot, that of Miss Hawker, of 77, Devonshire Road, is being fully cultivated. The fourth plot, that of Mr. Baines, of 87, Handsworth Wood Road, is used mainly as a paddock, and is subject to a restrictive covenant, imposed by a previous owner, that no building should be erected there. I ought to mention that a small part of Mr. Baines's plot is used by him for obtaining insects, of which he is an expert micro-photographer. I hope, as he has a nation-wide reputation in this field, that even if the Ministry feels that it must confirm this Order the local education authority will at least agree that this small part of Mr. Baines's plot shall be excluded from its operation.
But I should like to point out that the objectors to this Order opposed it on much wider grounds than the special interests which they, as plot owners, might be expected to have. This applies specially to the last objector—Mr. Jones, of 83, Handsworth Wood Road. He is not the owner of any of the land in question, but he appeared both on his own behalf and also on behalf of a number of neighbouring residents.
The objectors lodged their objections on four main grounds. First, they said that the erection of one or more schools on the site in question would affect not only the amenities of the neighbourhood but also the value of the residences in the three roads which surround the site. This area is one of the highest-rated residential districts in Birmingham. Incidentally, I think it is some evidence of its qualities that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) resides in this area, and also the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) on the other side of the House. Mr. Standring himself expressed the view that if both these schools were erected on this ground, the value of the properties in the immediate neighbourhood would probably decline by something like 10 to 15 per cent.
The second ground of objection was that the shape of the site—some 400 yards by 100 yards—made it a very inconvenient one for the erection of two schools. I must say that I feel that anyone who has seen the site must agree that it is difficult to see how two schools could be conveniently erected on it.
1054
The third ground was not so strong, but it is none the less an important one. To reach the site in question children would have to cross either Church Lane or Handsworth Wood Road and, as some hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, both these roads carry very heavy traffic. In particular, Church Lane is on the outer circle bus route, and it is a section of the very, important secondary road which connects the main road from Birmingham to Walsall with the main road from Birmingham to West Bromwich and Wednesbury.
The last ground of objection was that there were alternative sites available. Of the five alternative sites which were put forward at the inquiry only two were really feasible, and of those the site which Mr. Standring described in his report as Site No. 2 had admittedly the strong disadvantage of being rather far from the area from which the children for these secondary modern schools were likely to be drawn. Indeed, in all the correspondence about this compulsory purchase Order, Mr. Standring never at any time very strongly pressed the claim of this site.
On the other hand the last site, referred to as Site No. 1 in Mr. Standring's report, at the corner of Oxhill Road and Friary Road, was entirely suitable for the immediate erection of one school in every respect but one, which was that tipping had been carried out on this piece of land. The fact that this site was a tip site was not by itself a very serious objection, since at this moment a school is being built on a site in Grestone Avenue, where tipping has been a good deal deeper.
I think that the tenor of the report was absolutely clear. Mr. Standring, in sending in his report, made the technical error of not specifically recommending that the Minister should or should not confirm the Order; but when he was asked to give such a specific recommendation he replied quite categorically, on 11th January—and I will quote his exact words:
"I do recommend that the Ministry of Education should not confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order referred to above."
I want to make it clear to the House that I am very far from saying that a Minister should never, under any circumstances, reject the report of an independent

1055
inspector. Quite obviously, the Minister is the final arbiter in these matters and one can think of many occasions when he or she might find it necessary to reject the report of an independent inspector; but in a case like this, where an inspector recommends that a particular Order should not be confirmed, I put it to the House that it is of the highest importance that the Minister should consider any alternative suggestion of the inspector with all possible care.
The tenor of Mr. Standring's report, on 20th December, was clearly that Site No. 1, the Oxhill Road site, should be used for the girls' school, which was immediately required, and he emphasised this view still more clearly in a letter of 22nd February. He wrote:
"Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that alternative Site No. 1 is the most suitable in all the circumstances and that it is in the public interest that this site should be used for the purposes of one school rather than the site which is the subject of the inquiry."
He went on:
"In this particular connection, Site No. 1 is derelict, and the erection of a school on this site would cause no public harm to any surrounding land and might, indeed, be of considerable benefit, whereas the site, which is the subject of the inquiry, is put to a useful purpose and is of considerable amenity value to the houses adjoining, which are substantially rated, and not a charge on the rates as are so many smaller properties which are erected today."
The reply of the Ministry, on 15th April, to that last letter made one rather weak point, and another which was a substantial one. First, the weak point: the Ministry said that it would be difficult to build a school on the Oxhill Road site so that it had a southern aspect. I am not suggesting that the Birmingham Corporation should follow the example of Eton College, shortly after I went there in 1936, when a new boys' house was built with all the boys' rooms looking north and the kitchens facing south. But this particular problem of giving the school the right aspect is one which could surely be overcome by the exercise of normal architectural skill.
The second point is a more substantial one. The Ministry's letter reads:
"Furthermore (and to this point the Minister is bound to attach considerable importance at the present time) he"—
1056
that is the architect sent down by the Minister to examine the sites—
"expressed his opinion that building on such a Site would inevitably mean higher costs and greater demands on building labour and materials than building on the Site proposed by the Authority where, he says, the school could now be built more quickly, more cheaply, and with better amenities."
I have great admiration for efforts which the Minister of Education has made to secure economy in the educational services and I have no desire to join the class of persons rightly pilloried by the Financial Secretary, who support the idea of public economy in the abstract, but, who oppose every concrete possibility of putting it into effect. But I would draw attention to the words "at the present time" in the letter I have quoted because, whereas it might be a mistake to use the Oxhill Road site now, I do not believe we should rule out the possibility of using it in the future, especially in view of the fact that the Grestone Avenue example to which I have already referred, has shown clearly that there are no insuperable difficulties. technically, in building on tip land of this kind.
I come now to the concrete suggestion to which my remarks have been leading. My suggestion is, in effect, a compromise. I ask my hon. Friend whether it would not be possible to let the school, which is immediately required, be erected on the two plots near the frontage to Church Lane, which are only being cultivated to a limited extent, but, at the same time, whether the Minister could not, even at this stage, revoke the confirmation of this Order so far as plots 3 and 4 are concerned—that is to say. those belonging to Miss Hawkes and to Mr. Baines. There is a very good case for building one school on the plots belonging to Mr. Scott and Mr. Elvins, which are not at the moment under cultivation, and at the same time to revoke this Order so far as plots 3 and 4 are concerned. These two plots are not really suitable for the erection of a second school, and they are both at the present time in constant use.
It is the erection of a school on plots 3 and 4 which, in my view, will interfere most seriously with the amenities of the neighbourhood, nor do I think plots 3 and 4 provide an adequate area for the erection of a second school. This second

1057
school, on the evidence of the Birmingham Corporation themselves is not immediately required, and I suggest it is unreasonable to allow this compulsory purchase Order to extend to plots 3 and 4 when there is a site so eminently suitable as the Oxhill Road site for the erection of a further school some five to 10 years from now.
12.1 a.m.
Mr. James Simmons: I do not wish to stand between the Minister's reply and the House, but my presence here does not necessarily mean that I support the views put forward by my own Member of Parliament. It is a matter of courtesy to him as my Member to say that I should, as a democrat. be inclined to support the democratically elected education committee of my city council.
12.2 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): If I may intervene in this internecine strife, may I say that there were in the old days various forms of petty treason, but I wonder whether it is a form of petty treason for the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) to resist the pleading of his own Member? I would not like to be quite sure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) has put his case before the House, if I may say so, without patronage, in a very fair and reasonable way, and I will begin by indicating what seemed to be the salient points of what he said, to which he will require a reply. Then I will try to make a more or less reasoned reply.
First, the four or five alternatives really boil down to one. We need not be concerned with anything except the Site No. 1. So the battle is between the appeal site and the Site No. 1, where tipping is a serious objection. To whether it is or is not a really serious objection, I will return later. I thank my hon. Friend for his admission that the Minister must be the final arbitrator, because no doubt some of those interested in these matters have rather taken the line that it has always been previously understood the Minister was in some sense bound to accept the inspector's recommendation. I am glad we need not trouble to answer that. The fact is that
1058
the duty is on the Minister to make a decision and we are all in agreement on that point.
Finally, before I come to my continuous argument, the hon. Baronet spoke of asking his hon. Friend, which was his excessively polite and flattering way of referring to me, whether the proposal he indicated might not be possible. It is true he did make a request of that sort, and I do not say it by way of quarrelling, but that request came to me very late indeed. That request and his final sentence suggesting that it is unreasonable to allow this compulsory purchase Order to extend to the site for the second school are ruled out of court for consideration of time. It really seems to be not possible.
There has never been a case of a compulsory purchase order being revoked; and, although I do not say there never could be such a case, it seems plain that the revoking of compulsory purchase orders would introduce an element of uncertainty and inconvenience to everyone, and neither the hon. Baronet nor anyone else would expect the revoking of a compulsory purchase order except on extremely strong grounds arising since the order was made, and unless some new consideration had crept in. Those, then, are the points out of the hon. Baronet's speech which I would ask the House to bear in mind in listening to the continuous argument which I will now try to compress into ten minutes.
My right hon. Friend has always been extremely averse to compulsion, particularly in matters of property. The practice which has been traditional, and indeed under the 1921 Act obligatory, was that public inquiries in connection with compulsory purchase orders for educational purposes should be conducted not by an official, but by someone appointed especially for the purpose, generally a surveyor, but sometimes, if a question of law or other exceptional circumstances are considered likely, a barrister-at-law. This was the traditional practice, and until 1944 it was obligatory. It has continued to be the practice, without exception, that it should be a specially appointed person, and not an official, and that the proceedings should be public. That was the procedure followed in this case.

1059
I think it is widely, and almost universally, believed that such publicity naturally, on occasion, must lead to public questions which could not happen if the facts were not public knowledge. Such publicity is the strongest guarantee that fairness will, in general, be sought, and I believe it to be a strongly settled habit of mine in the Ministry to try to be fair in these cases, and I believe that if anyone in the Ministry were inclined to fall away from that habit this tradition of publicity would help to keep the habit alive.
Such procedure, as my hon. Friend knows, in no way diminishes the Minister's right and duty to make the decision herself. The inspector, as he is called, the person specifically appointed for the purpose, acts in a judicial spirit, but does not act to give a judicial decision, but rather to inform the Minister; and the Minister pays the greatest attention to his advice, but decides not necessarily and exclusively on the inspector's advice, nor necessarily and exclusively upon the information collected and digested by the inspector. Although the Minister pays great attention to the advice and evidence, yet the Minister may have other direct information to act upon.
In this case, the argument was approached without prejudice, the evidence was most carefully weighed, as I think can be demonstrated, although it is difficult to do so, and so also was the evidence which the inspector submitted to the Minister and which presumably was all the evidence he thought necessary to submit. All such evidence was very carefully considered, and upon the inspector's advice, although ultimately against it, and also upon supplementary evidence and on direct evidence, it was reluctantly decided that although the balances of advantage and disadvantage as between appeal site and site one were not beyond dispute, yet the Order ought to be confirmed.
That was the decision that was made, and I think I have now given a complete, and, I hope, a candid account to the House of the procedural matters with which we were concerned. And upon those procedural matters I hope I have convinced the House that there was no fault, unfairness or prejudice on the Minister's side.
1060
How far I ought to go into the material merits as distinct from the procedural I am not sure, but I will occupy the last five minutes in saying what I can about them. On the material merits it was not considered that the road dangers, as they will be minimised by the precautions the local education authority intends to take, ought to be a decisive factor; and indeed I think my hon. Friend agrees with us there; because, although I am sure he would agree with all the world that the lives of small children are more important than any other factor before us, he himself said that in this particular case that factor was not the most considerable.
It could not be settled on that, nor could it be settled upon the loss of amenity to the owners, occupiers and neighbours, deeply as my right hon. Friend regrets that loss of amenity. No doubt in any town, and more particularly perhaps in the outskirts of any town, one runs the risk that there will be new buildings, and when there are new buildings there is often loss of amenity.
Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend will agree that from the point of view of amenity it will make a considerable difference whether one school is erected or two schools are erected on the site.
Mr. Pickthorn: I quite agree, and I am coming to the point about one or two schools. The reason why these factors were not considered decisive is that the only one of four or five alternatives suggested which on investigation seemed comparable has this disadvantage, that it stands on a site for tipping, and that is where the southern aspect comes in. This objection against building upon rubbish and brickbats is particularly strong to precisely that part of site No. 1, where it would, for every other reason, be appropriate to put the actual building of the school. And the Minister's objection to Site No. 1 is stronger than has appeared from the extract from it—and that appears to me very strong indeed. Anyone who put his mind to it in the way in which it was the duty of the Minister to put her mind would conclude that it was a very strong objection indeed.
The subsoil has not been examined very closely, but on the face of all that can be observed it has the characteristics of a site which would swallow labour and material. There is not the least

1061
doubt about it. It is not a question of being mean about money. It is that the site would have swallowed labour and material. In all the circumstances of the case, whichever view one takes of the economic situation, whether the Conservative view or the Labour view, whichever view one takes of necessary economies in education, it would have swallowed labour and material which are at the Minister's disposal to be used only for absolute necessities. The objection is especially strong when we think of all the other things for which labour and materials. especially building labour and materials. are needed.
The suggested compromise came a little late. We consulted the L.E.A. as fast as we could. It had to be done mainly by telephone and everyone knows how difficult that is. I cannot say that the L.E.A. will accept, but I can offer a crumb of comfort to the hon. Baronet,
1062
that is to say, that the L.E.A. does propose to acquire the whole of the appeal site immediately, but they only need to build as immediately as possible—as my hon. Friend says—first, the girls' school; and they will consider as sympathetically as possible requests for continuance of the present users of those parts of the site which are not immediately needed and, as my hon. Friend said, that gives them, probably, a prospect of 10 years.
I hope that that may be some small comfort to them, particularly the micro-photographer. I am bound to say that until he referred to his numerous friends I did not realise that the favourite material of a micro-photographer was a Member of Parliament.
Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Clayton-le-Moors Office (Closure)
  Clayton-le-Moors Office (Closure)
  Industrial Injuries (Dependant Allowances)
  Industrial Injuries (Dependant Allowances)
  Textiles, Pottery and Engineering (Unemployment Benefit)
  Textiles, Pottery and Engineering (Unemployment Benefit)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Currants, Raisins and Sultanas
  Currants, Raisins and Sultanas
  Eggs (Farm Prices)
  Eggs (Farm Prices)
  Slaughterhouse, Sunderland
  Slaughterhouse, Sunderland
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gold Coast (Gold Exports)
  Gold Coast (Gold Exports)
  European Payments Union Agreement (Amendment)
  European Payments Union Agreement (Amendment)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Defence Orders, Lanarkshire
  Defence Orders, Lanarkshire
  Factory, Monkwearmouth (Steel Supplies)
  Factory, Monkwearmouth (Steel Supplies)
  ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC RELATIONS)
  ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC RELATIONS)
  TELEVISION (FREQUENCY CHANNELS)
  TELEVISION (FREQUENCY CHANNELS)
  ROAD EXPENDITURE, WALES
  ROAD EXPENDITURE, WALES

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Auckland—Took the Oath.
The Lord Monkswell—Took the Oath.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
2.36 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length on this Bill, but there is one point to which I think I ought to draw your attention. The object of this Bill has been described as a scheme to harness Snowdonia for the purpose of making electric current. While I have no objection to the economic reason, I believe that it is important that in one of the few regions which are left relatively untouched by the hand of man we should be careful to see that the beauty is preserved. By some oversight, only Stonehenge has so far not been utilised for some commercial purpose and, as your Lordships know, for many thousands of years has not earned its keep. To some extent, Snowdonia has done so, but it is now to be made to earn its keep to a greater extent than in the past. I should not Worry so much about the British Electricity Authority were it not that on Friday last, at a meeting of the Glamorgan County Planning Committee at Cardiff, the planning officer said of a project which the British Electricity Authority are putting up on their boundaries:
"A proposal of this kind would be most detrimental. It would really destroy a most beautiful valley."
726
If the British Electricity Authority are capable of destroying a most beautiful valley in South Wales, there is no reason to suppose they would not be capable of destroying a beautiful valley in North Wales. I would ask the Committee, who in this context, I believe, is the Lord Chairman of Committees, to look into this point and ascertain whether Clause 23—the amenities clause—is strong enough to achieve its purpose, or whether it would not be better if the British Electricity Authority had to obtain the approval of various planning authorities rather than merely to consult them. I have no other objection to this Bill.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the House will understand that I in no sense speak for the promoters in this matter, but I will naturally bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
2.41 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved by Lord Ogmore on Wednesday last, That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the proposals for Central African Federation.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, since the adjournment of this debate a good deal has happened with regard to the subject now under discussion and, in the words of The Times, we meet under the shadow of opposition in Southern Rhodesia to the draft which we are now discussing. In addition to that, there appeared in last Friday's issue of The times a powerful and striking letter from Professor Frankel. That, I think, indicates the

727
growing opposition to the draft as it is now presented. I hasten to say that, so far as I can measure both the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House and outside criticism, there is no opposition to some sort of understanding, federation, or whatever it might be, of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland; but this particular draft does not fit the bill. From that point of view, I think I might ask whether, in view of these criticisms, the Government would be prepared to take the scheme back again and reconsider the position.
Opinion grows against the scheme, not only among the Africans but also among Europeans. It is right to ask why, because there is much in the draft which at first sight should commend itself. From the African point of view, I imagine that the objection is more intuitive than anything else, but often intuition on matters concerning human relations is a far better guide than mere dogmatic statements, such as that you must have this Bill, or that you ought to have it. In my view, it is better to take note of those people who will be most intimately concerned, and whose opinions are no doubt moved by past history and by events which they see happening very close to them. May it be that the opposition was summed up, in a way unintentionally, by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he said that this was meant to preserve the British way of life in Africa? May it not be that, after all, the Africans are not so concerned as are the whites about preserving the British way of life; that they may see in it an insuperable barrier to their further development and to their progress as a people? In that connection, one cannot help noticing that the timing of the publication of a draft of this sort has been very bad. The Africans cannot fail to observe what is happening in South Africa with regard to the segregation of the races. The Bamangwato trouble is still fresh in their minds, and these things are being literally drummed through Africa: the bush telephone beats, in rapidity and in intimacy, anything that we have at our disposal in Western civilisation.
While none disputes the necessity of a closer connection, and the advantages that may be derived from it, and while none will depreciate the great benefit that has
728
undoubtedly accrued to the African people, both culturally and in many other ways, through their association with white people, nevertheless, there are other matters which give them grave cause for doubt. To a certain extent I have been forestalled by the right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishop of Chichester and the Lord Bishop of Coventry in drawing attention to the resolutions passed by the British Council of Churches and the various missionary societies. I suggest that these resolutions cannot be lightly swept aside. After all, the members of these associations are more in touch with native life than many who hold Government positions, and the Conference held at Belfast recently represented the voice of all the Protestant Churches in this country. Anybody who has had any contact with missionaries on the field knows well how intimate is their contact with the people whom they serve.
In addition, there has appeared in The Times of Friday last the letter from Professor Frankel, who is an authority who cannot be ignored or lightly swept aside. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a paragraph from the letter. It refers to Chapter V, which is the crucial chapter of the draft. In speaking of the African position, the writer says:
"It is difficult to see how in a multi-racial society, in parts of which differentiation is to-day the key-note of much political and economic action, and of deeply ingrained habit-patterns of thought, the board is to succeed in ensuring that any federal legislation will not 'differentiate either in terms or in operation between Europeans and Africans to the disadvantage of the latter'."
That is a point of view which cannot be ignored. It should be taken careful note of. It is no good our hiding our heads in the ground and saying, in effect, "We have come to this conclusion and you must take it or leave it," for the matters at issue are too grave and serious. What is at issue is the living together of two separate races of people; the harmonising of the different ways of life of the white and the coloured people; and whether or not in the distant future (I do not think it is too much to say this) the final disruption of the British Empire may be involved. After all, Africa is the last remnant we have of the old British Empire, and what is going to happen in the future largely depends upon our relationships. Africa is the last link between this country and the British

729
Empire. Parliament has an opportunity to forge between two races a spiritual and economic partnership, fraught with good or evil for all time. If it is to be the former it must be a real partnership of equal human dignity, co-operating for the benefit of mankind, and not that of overlord and hewers of wood and drawers of water.
While everything possible seems to have been inserted in the draft to maintain the existing status and the existing rights of the coloured people, there is no provision whatever for their future freedom of development: and it is that, more than anything else, about which the African is naturally concerned. These conditions cannot be achieved under the draft scheme; and with lack of adequate African representation in the Legislative Assembly, it would be almost impossible for them to get anything whereby they could improve their position.
That is all I have to say, except that I would venture to call your Lordships' attention to this fact. If it were possible for us to look out of the window across the road, we should see in course of erection but a few yards from this House a monument on which will be inscribed a tribute to one of the finest acts the British Parliament ever did. I refer to the memorial to those men who worked and strove for the emancipation of the slaves. It is a strange irony that we should be considering at this moment something that very nearly approaches handing them back and making it possible for something similar to happen in the not very distant future. It is because of that danger—not that I think there has been, or is any intention or desire in that direction on the part of those chiefly concerned (at least. I hope not) but there is the danger—that we cannot afford to allow any draft to go through which lends any countenance to that suspicion, and which may do something to drive a wedge between these people who have been and are loyal supporters of the British Crown and the British people. They are growing up and, as they grow up, so they have that right to demand, as others have demanded, that they shall have the liberty to grow and develop and express their personality. For these reasons, I hope that the Government, in the, light of the increasing and cumulative opposition to this scheme, will think again.
2.52 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in. venturing to address your Lordships on, this subject, I should first like to refer to the points which have been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He says that opinion is growing against this idea of federation as expressed in the scheme before your Lordships' House. That view appears to be based merely upon the fact that more publicity is being given to the opposition, but whether opinion is growing or not is a matter upon which we must differ. I personally should suggest that it is not In the course of the remarks which I propose to make I shall, with your Lordships' permission, deal with the other points which the noble Lord made, for I think he laid undue stress, as I shall suggest later, upon what is happening in South Africa. In regard to the resolutions passed by the Council' of Churches, too, I shall have a few respectful remarks to make later.
Throughout the noble Lord's speech there ran the idea that the settlers in the Rhodesias are not to be trusted. If you start any Constitution, or any scheme_ with the idea that the most important partners in it are people not to be trusted_ obviously it can lead you only to one conclusion—and I shall have more to say about that later. If I may say so with respect, even so high an authority as Professor Frankel seems to suggest that it is necessary to have, outside the ordinary machine of government, an organisation independent of that machine, charged with the duty of seeing that the Government does its proper duty. To my mind, it is the fantastic product of a theorist, if I may say so with great respect. I have been concerned throughout my life with practical administration, and I know that, whatever theories may be held, it is necessary for government, for practical administration, to be carried on. I should like briefly before saying the things which I wish to say on my own account, to refer to one or two of the things which were said in the debate on the first day, because I feel that I cannot pass them by without comment.
To begin with, I feel rather disappointed in the noble Lord who moved this Motion because, with his knowledge of the facts of the situation and with his knowledge of the circumstances of Colonial administration, I had expected that he would be a supporter, and an

731
open supporter, of the present scheme. It is true that he left us in some doubt about his actual views but, if I may refer to the report of his speech in Hansard, he said that he did not propose to deal with the details of the scheme because he thought that the most important thing was the general attitude towards federation. In that, I would venture to agree with him; the actual details of this scheme are relatively unimportant compared with the emotions and the sentiments which must govern the possibility of making it a success. In the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 177, Col. 596) the noble Lord says that the attitude of the African "is based upon fear." He then goes on to detail what kind of fear he is referring to. I agree that the attitude of the bulk of the Africans is based upon fear, a fear which they have of the unknown. But I suggest that that is not the real thing which is causing opposition to-day: the real cause of the opposition is the use which is being made of the fear of those multitudes by a certain small number of people who are able to appeal to their racial emotions and get behind them the force of that fear. I say that they are exploiting that, but I shall have a little more to say about that later.
In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord made a very romantic reference to the Barotse Chief who was afraid that the touch with the Throne in England would be diminished by this kind of thing. In the course of this somewhat romantic irrelevance, if I may say so, the noble Lord said that this particular Chief to whom he had talked in London had in his boyhood had the pleasure of speaking with Livingstone. In passing, I should like to say that the age of that Chief is estimated to be about sixty, and Livingstone died eighty years ago, so that, historically, there seems to be a certain difficulty in that part of the story. In any case, the reference to the fear that the "shield of protection" (to use the noble Lord's words) of the British Crown would be diminished is not, I suggest, a valid objection. Throughout my career in the Colonies, and throughout the Empire, one can hardly help being struck by the deep and abiding loyalty to the person of the Monarch. That does not mean that there may not be different views held from time to time about the British Government. In the native mind the two things
732
are regarded separately, and it is, I suggest, stretching matters considerably to bring the idea of diminution of the loyalty and respect for the Monarch into any action of this kind in relation to the Constitution. I still look forward, and with some confidence, to Lord Ogmore's saying openly at the end of this debate that he is a supporter of these proposals. That would not in any way surprise me, in view of what the noble Lord has said about these proposals in the past.
I should now like to make one reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, especially as I am speaking as a Liberal—a National Liberal. I heard with amazement what he said, and I doubted the evidence of my own ears. I leave you with the idea about the noble Lord's phantom army and about the mythical millions he represents. But when, with reference to the settlers (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, Col. 602), he speaks of
"exploitation by what are called the white settlers, who in the past have not scrupled, and in the future will continue not to scruple, to turn things to their own advantage in a country where civilisation is only slowly coming to political adolescence,"I can say only that I deeply regret that any such slander should have been uttered in this House upon the settlers in Southern or Northern Rhodesia.
LORD REA: Would the noble Lord allow me just for a moment to explain? I think there is some mistake. Obviously, I did not mean for a moment that all the white settlers exploited the natives. It is known to your Lordships' House that certain unfortunate and regrettable incidents have occurred in the past. African natives fear that something of the same sort will happen again. I went out of my way to praise the excellent work done by the white settlers in general, and to say that I denounced them in generality is quite inaccurate. I think there is some mistake.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not wish to lay too much stress upon what the noble Lord said, but I could hear, and his words are recorded in Hansard. The noble Lord was good enough to pay a handsome tribute to the Government servants, but he made no reference to any settlers who deserve to share in that tribute. Naturally. I should accept any praise which he accords to the Colonial Service as highly merited, but I think

733
it a little odd that he should have found it necessary to refer to these men in this kind of way. After all, my Lords, who at this moment are the settlers in the Rhodesias? Are they not just the same sort of men who made the reputation of the British Empire; who went to the ends of the earth and carried the idea of personal liberty which Liberals are supposed to value, and who carried the idea that the English man stood for justice and all of those qualities? It is just that same sort of man whom we are now discussing.
My Lords, if I may pass on to the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, he said (and reiterated, I think, in reply to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, when he was questioned as to what he was representing) that he felt he had the right or duty to represent African opinion in this House. He said that he based what he said on reports from missionaries and Africans to whom he had spoken. My Lords, with my experience I should be the last person to deny the immense debt which is owed by the Colonial world to the work of the Christian Churches; but I should like also to add that one of the most harmful people who can be met with in any Colony is a missionary who decides to meddle in local politics; it is not his business, and he should keep away from it.
In relation to African opinion, which is very relevant to our debate, may I say what, as I see it, that really is? As one noble Lord pointed out during the debate on the last occasion, in a generic sense there is really no such thing. African opinion is largely what the bulk of the people are told by a few politically minded and educated men, men who have decided to use their influence as the educational leaders of those people, to use that vague fear of the African of things he does not know or understand, and to guide it into opposition, say, to this proposal, or into opposition to any proposal which may suit the aims of those few. I suggest that to-day in Central Africa African opinion on this scheme represents largely the ambition of a few men. These men aim to use racial ambition in order to climb to power and to African domination of that part of the world. At the moment, I am not condemning; I am merely trying to record
734
what, as I see it, is happening in that area of the world. I suggest that if we use the phrase "African opinion" we should endeavour to make clear what we mean by it.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that Labour and Liberal opinion and opinion in the Church of England took the same view, on broad lines. I suggest that any fair-minded listener, hearing the speeches in the debate on the last occasion, could hardly appreciate what was the Socialist Party's point of view because the speakers varied so much among themselves; and the Liberal view was so manifestly contrary to that of the noble Lord who opened the debate. If I may at this moment prove that point, I should like to give a quotation from something which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said about the settlers some eleven months ago. Then he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 173, Col. 203):
"I do not know why, but for some reason anyone in Eastern or Central. Africa who happens to have European blood in his veins seems constantly to be the object not only of criticism but of slander in this country."
He then goes on to relate things which he himself had seen, and he concluded:
"I thought it a great tribute to the people who had gone out there that they had spent so much thought, time and money on helping their African fellow citizens. To hear these same people castigated by persons who have never been nearer Africa than Southend really makes one feel upset."
Those are Lord Ogmore's words, and I must say that I wholeheartedly and entirely agree with him. I assume that he still holds those views, and that is why he felt some difficulty in taking a definite stand on this question.
My Lords, there are so many points which one would like to take up, but I feel that I can take up only one or two before I go on to say what I wanted to say on my own account. The urbanity with which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, urged us, when we are face to face with a position which manifestly ought to be met, to suspend judgment and to wait a little longer, involves just that kind of paralysis which, I suggest, in the face of a demand for leadership, will condemn Central Africa to a very unhappy future. The noble Earl referred to Mr. Churchill as ultimately having been very statesmanlike in his attitude over the India Act, but seemed unable to draw the obvious conclusion that here was an Opportunity

735
for the display of similar statesmanship, if that be the right name for it, by the Opposition Front Bench. As a Liberal, I strongly object to monopolies, and why the Socialist Opposition should insist upon leaving to Mr. Churchill a monopoly of statesmanship, I do not know. I think it would to the benefit of this country if that monopoly were broken by the display of some statesmanship over this question.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, made a number of criticisms, all of which, ultimately, were based on this distrust of the settler. I need not go into that in detail, but I feel that I must, in view of the position I used to occupy, enter a protest against the remarks he made and which are recorded in Hansard. The noble Earl said (Col. 646):
"Look around the world and you will find that there are a good many countries where leaders, very great leaders, with a world reputation, have spent years in British prisons. That is so in most Colonial countries. The politically active men are the ones who have been in prison."
I should like to repudiate as emphatically as I can any suggestion that our Colonies are at the present moment being managed unofficially by a number of ex-gaolbirds. The noble Earl's statement has no relation to the truth or to the facts. One or two people may have been at one time or another interned, but that sort of statement, I suggest, leaves a very wrong impression of the men who are in charge of those unofficial bodies.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Lord will not deny, I take it, that that is so in the case of the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast.
LORD MILVERTON: Yes, I quite agree. But I think the noble Earl, like many Africans to-day, is obsessed with a Gold Coast complex. But there are many territories in the British Empire other than the Gold Coast, and that remark does not apply to them.
LORD WINSTER: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting for one moment? Would he not agree with me that it is very derogatory to apply the term "gaolbird" to a man who has been in prison only for his political convictions?
LORD MILVERTON: If the noble Lord feels that way about it, I can only
736
say that I had no intention of using an offensive expression. I do not quite know what expression one should use—
LORD WINSTER: Political prisoner
LORD MILVERTON: The noble Lord suggests that we should use the description "political prisoner." But it was not said in any way by the noble Earl that those people had gone to prison solely for their political convictions.
Passing to the proposals before the House, I take it that most noble Lords are agreed upon the virtues of federation at some time or other. It is obvious that the inter-locking interests, the continuous inter-flow of population between the territories and the complementary nature of their physical resources all point to that inevitable end. I gather that, largely for political and social reasons, amalgamation has been rejected in favour of a federation in which each of the three component countries can pursue their common objective of the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans, in their different way and at a different pace to suit local circumstances. I myself am a wholehearted believer in federation, and so, I understand, are most of your Lordships and most of the European residents of Central Africa, so long as the interests of both Africans and Europeans are adequately safeguarded. And I would lay stress upon the fact that the Europeans there are just as much entitled to have their interests safeguarded as are the Africans. Some of us to-day are so busy in being fair to other people that we have no time, it seems to me, to be fair to our own people. My personal belief is that the safeguards now proposed are full and adequate. That is where some of us part company. It is also where the vocal section of African opinion in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia differs. They say that they do not want federation, and do not believe that any safeguards, short of universal suffrage, could be devised which would give them what they want.
Let us face this position frankly. There are, as I see it, three courses before Central Africa. First, universal suffrage, That is quantitative democracy—or mob rule, if you like to call it that. Whichever name you prefer, in the circumstances of Central Africa, universal

737
suffrage now or in any early future would mean economic, social and political suicide for the European settlers—white Africans, whose home it is just as much as it is the home of the black Africans, and whose energy, experience and ability not only has built up the present economy but is essential to its maintenance and to the hope of the future progress and prosperity for all Africans, white or black. The black Africans have been encouraged by certain sections in England and deluded by their own dreams to think in terms of West Africa. The circumstances, historical, social, political and economic, are so entirely different that no true analogy exists. In West Africa now self-government on a basis of universal suffrage is at worst a premature African gamble. In Central Africa it would be a European sacrifice and betrayal. I think we can reject the likelihood of any British Government behaving in this way or endorsing such a policy.
The second possible course is the forcible maintenance of European domination. I think we can also reject the possibility of any British Government adopting this policy. It would have no supporters here or in Central Africa. The third course is the one desired by Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky—a system of partnership in a multi-racial society wherein all races would co-operate to the full extent of their capacity in developing a country in the best interests of all its inhabitants. They aim at this multi-racial society in which parties would arise, but parties whose differences would be based on policy, not on colour. As Sir Godfrey has said, the problem of race is a human problem, best handled by those who live in the same country, not by prejudiced doctrinaires in London or anywhere else. He claims that the Africans of Southern Rhodesia know and trust their European fellow-citizens and that no sane Rhodesian would advocate a policy of suppression which must ultimately end in disaster, if not for himself for his children.
It has been alleged that the Africans of the two Northern territories fear the native policy of Southern Rhodesia. If that is so, they have been very badly misled, since the record of Southern Rhodesia shows that far more has been done there for real African welfare than in either of the other two territories—or, indeed, in
738
probably any other British Colony. I do not know whether your Lordships are familiar with the booklets issued by the Government of Southern Rhodesia. They deal with what has been done for Africans, what is being done and what they aim to do—in education, health, agriculture, housing and so forth. Anybody reading these booklets impartially could say honestly that there is no need for a special organisation to look after the welfare of the Africans. We can see sketched there the most far-sighted policy which any Government in the Colonial Empire has yet adopted. It is true that vocal African opinion opposes federation, but it is also true that the bulk of Africans have no idea what this is all about. Their views on this, or any other subject, are dictated largely by a conservative fear, a dislike of any change, coloured by the distrust and suspicion of unknown things. For the African there is no such feeling as omn2/8/2007e ignotum pro magnifico—quite the reverse: their "unknown" is peopled by evil spirits.
There has been a deplorable tendency to exaggerate the difficulties of doing what is generally known to be right in Central Africa. I know that it is no use crying over spilt milk, but at least one may regret that no firm lead was given by the British Government a year ago. I suggest that it is the duty of the protecting Power, in such circumstances, to give unequivocal advise, and to say whether or not federation is a good thing or a bad thing, and whether they are satisfied that the interests of their protégés will be adequately safeguarded. In this instance, to the African, silence must imply dissent, or at least doubt. If the Africans as a whole are capable of grasping this issue, and if their decision is the only one that matters, then what becomes of the need to have a Protectorate status there at all? In that case, they are quite competent to manage their own affairs. But in point of fact the bulk of Africans are notoriously unfitted to decide for themselves, any more than, shall we say, the population of this country is fitted to decide on a complex question of financial policy. We all know that they are not, and we all know that: such questions are never referred to them in those terms.
The absence of such a lead has left the field wide open for those who wish to make trouble or to confuse the issue.

739
In passing, may I suggest that there is no necessity to drag South Africa into this question? What is happening in South Africa at the moment, and whether we approve of it or not, does not seem to me to affect the rights and wrongs of this issue of federation. The question is: Is federation on these terms a good thing on its own merits, in the local circumstances of Central Africa? I have been concerned with the introduction of new Constitutions in Fiji, Jamaica and Nigeria, and I never failed to give definite advice to those whose interests were the special concern of the British Government. In Fiji and in Nigeria, particularly, I found leaders of the people who were opposed to any change in a modern direction because they were fearful of the unknown. I succeeded in persuading them that, in their own future interests, they ought to agree to superficially unpalatable, political development in order to fit themselves to take their place in a world which would not, and could not, wait indefinitely for them; and that none but themselves and their own capacity could ultimately decide their destiny, if they were but willing to fit themselves for it.
A heavy responsibility rests upon any one who fans the unreasoning mistrust beween European and African. Many critics of federation, moving clumsily about in worlds not realised, seem to be, no doubt unwittingly, bent on creating an atmosphere in which trust and mutual confidence can hardly be expected to grow. The draft proposals for a Central African Federation represent an honest attempt to reconcile contending views in detail for the sake of greater general principles and an ambitious conception to ensure peace and prosperity in the future. It seems to me a pity that a great opportunity such as this could possibly be lost through a petty craving to express in legal terms an ideal which defies definition and which essentially cannot be defined. We cannot inspire confidence unless we feel it, and that is the damage which is being done to-day by people who suggest a lack of confidence. I think that the men in Central Africa, in Northern and in Southern Rhodesia in particular, who are backing this idea of federation are men who are very suitable legatees of our trusts and respon-
740
sibilities in those territories. They are men whose idea of those responsibilities is strengthened by the fact that they have made the country their home. I implore noble Lords on the Opposition Benches to think again before they oppose what may be the last chance of peace in Central Africa.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord in order to secure clarification? He has talked very understandingly about the necessity of the Government making up their mind and giving advice but are we to understand that the noble Lord thinks that the Government here should impose a scheme against the solid will of the Africans?
LORD MILVERTON: My answer to that question is that after suitable and simple explanation in the manner which was suggested last week by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry, has been given to the bulk of Africans. and after every effort has been made in the brief period between now and the autumn to see to it that the truth of what is being attempted and the safeguards involved are put to them, it is, in my opinion, the duty of the British Government to show that leadership which is expected of a Government and to put to the Africans the best way. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that time is a great healer. It is indeed. If these proposals are put through, in spite of a certain amount of opposition from Africans, I am confident that within two or three years they will realise how great an advantage has been done them unawares. I know from my own experience in Nigeria that had I stood aside and given no advice, the people of the North would have opposed what is today praised by everybody as the best hope for the future of Nigeria. Opposition died only when they found that the thing worked—and that is the best way to convince the African to show him that it works and, not only that, but that it works to his advantage.
The spirit of Cecil Rhodes inspires these proposals; and that spirit still waits
"Till the vision he foresaw
Splendid and whole arise,
And unimagined Empires draw
To Council 'neath his skies."
Those lines were written some time ago. But this is one of the unimagined empires which might spring easily to council if

741
only we can give the Africans united advice that it is a wise thing to do. In conclusion, I would ask your Lordships to remember certain other words that were written. Cecil Rhodes died fifty years ago, and the words were written:
"Dreamer devout, by vision led
Beyond our guess or reach,
The travail of his spirit bred
Cities in place of speech.
So huge the all-mastering thought that drove—
So brief the term allowed—
Nations not words he linked to prove
His faith before the crowd."
If something of that spirit could inspire our words and acts to-day, I think there would be less difficulty in persuading the African of our sincerity and of their own interests. No doubt it is a wise precaution to keep our feet on the ground, but it is surely a mistake to limit our national spirit to purely pedestrian exercise. I unreservedly support the federation proposals, because they seem to me to be workable and to give a fair deal to both European and African—if I may use the phrase, to the white and the black African—and on that basis to hold out hope of a peaceful and prosperous future for Central Africa; a future which can be obtained in no other way, and which, if obtained, will be an example and perhaps an inspiration to the countries lying north and south of her.
3.33 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I have no wish in this long two-day debate to detain your Lordships unduly, but there is one aspect of this matter which I want especially to stress. First of all, let me indicate, in the fewest possible words, both the good will and the grave anxiety of vast numbers of Free Churchmen in this problem. Earlier in the debate the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Coventry, speaking, as he said, from the angle of the missionary societies, concluded his speech with these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, Cols. 665–6]:
"… I feel strongly the objection that we are overriding the Africans. There are problems in this House for mutual consideration and thought, and I suggest that we should not be in too great haste, though the issue may be of great urgency."
I am sure that that advice is wise, and hope that the Government will heed it.
It is well over forty-five years since I first entered the House of Commons as the Liberal Member for Rochester, and
742
during the greater part of the intervening period I have been a member of the Methodist Missionary Committee. I can assure your Lordships that we are very much alive to the difficulties of the Government, because we, on our part, are faced with the problems of the multiracial Church. At the request of our Committee two of our secretaries have just paid a visit, of some months' duration, to the Rhodesias, where we have both African and European Methodist ministers. Upon their return they have issued a most helpful and penetrating report to the Committee, running into nearly eight pages of closely printed matter. Without divulging any confidences, I think I might give your Lordships the gist of three short paragraphs, the first two dealing with Northern Rhodesia. The first paragraph says this:
"There is much that can be done … if the European minister regards himself, not as one who is entrusted with keeping the present organisation going in the certainty that there will be someone sent out to take his place when be is done, but as committed in all his work to such planning as his African colleague may inherit."
The second passage, also dealing with Northern Rhodesia, says:
"We feel that at present the Methodist Church can contribute more in Northern Rhodesia by retaining a definite Church attachment with the Church in Britain.…"
But they add:
"We would like to see a greater development of African leadership.…"
As to Southern Rhodesia, they say:
"As the Church overseas develops, its administration is undertaken more completely by nationals of the country."
I can certainly claim that we are in active and intimate touch with many of the peoples of Central Africa and their problems. The Methodist Church in this country has a very special responsibility towards the Methodist Church in both Southern and Northern Rhodesia, and is naturally watching closely the proposals for bringing the Governments of those two territories, together with Nyasaland. into one Federation.
I very much hope that no antagonism to the Europeans in Africa will be inferred from anything I am about to say, for I feel it is common ground that the African natives owe a great deal to the European settlers; and, for myself, I would add that, if the situation is wisely handled now, they may yet owe a great deal more. But that, I submit, must not

743
close our eyes to the fact that, notwithstanding the provisions for the protection of African interests, the present scheme for the federation of the three territories is revolutionary rather than evolutionary, and is not one that the Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Africans will look upon with favour. In fact, they are almost unanimously opposed to federation in existing circumstances, whatever the future may hold. For, while they trust the Colonial Office—as well they may—rightly or wrongly they fear the domination of Southern Rhodesia, which is so much stronger, politically and economically.
Is such opposition to be wondered at when one remembers that, among other invidious things, the Southern Rhodesian franchise is restricted, admittedly for whites as well as for coloured people, to persons with property qualification of at least £250—yes, and with educational qualifications, too, which few Africans at present possess? In my submission, no enactment of federation should be approved that does not carry the full consent of the native peoples themselves. That seems to me to be axiomatic, in view of the findings of the official Committee set up in 1950. In their Report (Cmd. 8233) it is maintained that any form of co-operation or federation should be acceptable to the inhabitants. No such acceptance of this scheme is forthcoming by the Africans. The Times, in a leading article on May 7 last, stated:
"There is still the intractable problem of African opposition."
Now I am sure that the only way forward at the present time is to direct all our energies towards encouraging partnership between the two races who have their permanent home in Central Africa, and then await the future with faith and hope. As Mr. Lyttelton has well said:
"There is no future in self-government by Africans alone or in self-government by Europeans alone—the solution will lie in partnership."
That is profoundly true at the moment, but my plea is that nothing should be done to prejudice or make more difficult the possibility of self-government by Africans themselves in the future on some such lines as the present Governments of India and Pakistan. In the meantime, I feel that any federation, other than a freely accepted partnership, would destroy
744
the basis on which ultimate success would depend. Much more African self-government, both local and provincial, should, in my judgment, be conceded now and with the utmost sympathy and generosity.
Very much as I dislike joining issue with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who leads your Lordships' House with such conspicuous ability and unfailing courtesy, I cannot refrain from referring to his declaration that, in his belief, this scheme represents the
"last chance of maintaining the British way of life … in that part of the world."
So far from allaying our anxiety, that declaration has rather added to our disquiet. In that connection I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read a short extract from an article on the leader page of the Methodist Recorder of the 26th ultimo. I would remind your Lordships that that paper has the largest circulation of any Protestant religious weekly in this country. This is what it said:
"Every conceivable safeguard of the African's status and rights has been inserted in the draft and yet the Africans, all but unanimously as it seems, dislike it. Why? Perhaps because everything is guaranteed to the African except, to him, the most important thing of all—a progressive future, the advancement of his status within the federation. His existing rights are scrupulously preserved; but so also, according to Lord Salisbury, is 'the British way of life in that part of the world'—and this, the African may feel, is a quite unnecessary bar on his own rightful development. It might be as well if the Government looked at the scheme again in this light and in the light of the avowed motive of native trusteeship."
I am sure that that is another piece of sound advice. This is not a matter which can be hurried. I would commend to the noble Marquess the words of the prophet Isaiah:
"He that believeth shall not make haste."
Let us, however, face the facts and be quite frank about it. Two hundred thousand Europeans in Central Africa seek to safeguard their power and wealth. On the other hand 6,350,000 Africans are apprehensive that, before they become more versed in the subtleties of modern civilisation and sufficiently experienced to manage their own affairs, the die will be cast and the Europeans whom they out-number by 31 to I will be entrenched in their supremacy and consolidated in their political power. Is it any wonder

745
that so many Africans refuse absolutely to be a party to any scheme which they believe, rightly or wrongly, may jeopardise their own future? Their ultimate goal being self-government, are they likely to interest themselves in federation unless and until they are qualified to take a major part in it?
THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): The noble Lord has said several times that the ultimate goal of the African is self-government. Does that mean the entire elimination from Central Africa of the European? He appeared to me to differentiate between what I call the British way of life and self-government in Africa—that is to say, some share in the ultimate share in the Government by Africans. Does he regard those as alternatives? In my view, unless the British had gone to Africa at the present time there would have been no peace, justice or security there of the type they have now. If we leave, they will go back to where they were before.
LORD ROCHESTER: I would agree with the noble Marquess in his concluding remarks, and remind him of the analogy of the Gold Coast. I am talking about the ultimate view, however far it may be in the future. As I said before, what I regret about this scheme is that it is revolutionary rather than evolutionary. I believe that if we handle this situation carefully we shall help the Africans in their ultimate goal.
The Europeans' attitude, on the other hand, of "Now or never," would seem to be to secure power resting in their hands from the start. With the two parties taking such diametrically opposed views, unless we are very careful we shall be faced with a head-on collision. Never was there more need for wise and cautious statesmanship on our part, for it is for us to see that justice is done between these conflicting interests. As I think back on the past—and I am sure the noble Marquess will forgive me—and recall the days of his father in your Lordships' House some forty-five years ago, when Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the Liberal Prime Minister, I question whether there are many members of your Lordships' House (barring the Leader of the Liberal Party, Lord Samuel, Lord Simon and Lord Stansgate)
746
besides myself who heard this declaration. I heard Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman say after the conclusion of the Boer War:
"We do not want you at our feet. We want you at our side."
That, I am sure, is the spirit which should be exemplified to-day in handling this question of the Central African Federation If we fail to keep open the door for an ever-increasing measure of self-government by the Africans themselves, then submit that our responsibility as trustees will indeed be a grave one, for we shall have left undone that which we ought to have done. God grant that we may not fail to do for these Africans what they at this juncture cannot do for themselves! We should do well to remember Christ's own words:
"Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Most earnestly I would urge the Government to think again before pressing forward with this scheme.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, in opening the debate to-day, said that he had heard that there was increasing criticism of the scheme, both from natives and also from certain elements of white settlers in Rhodesia and he seemed to conclude that, therefore, the scheme was a bad one. Now, surely, if these are the facts, they are open to precisely the opposite interpretation. If both the extremes criticise the scheme, surely there is some reason to believe that it is a good scheme and a satisfactory compromise. At least the argument is equally valid.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, if he will look back over the history of federation, and especially of the different Federations that have been brought into operation in the world in the last two hundred years, he will find very much the same sort of story. Federations, to the best of my historical knowledge, have never gone through without a great deal of argument and criticism. The noble Lord has only to look at the history, at the end of the eighteenth century, of the United States. Let him read The Federalist in its various issues and see the various views on the idea of federation and the criticisms of them—and yet it has proved a terrific success. Let him, to take a more recent

747
case, look at the history of Canadian federation. I heard someone say the other day that in the case of Canada so little was originally agreed that the authors were afraid to hold a referendum because they feared that if it was held the idea would be defeated. Well, my Lords, no one looking back would doubt that Canadian federation has been an enormous success. The same thing was true of Australian federation, and again it has proved a great sucess. Therefore the fact that there is no general universal agreement about this scheme does not necessarily mean that it is a bad one.
On the contrary, I suggest that it means that it is a very reasonable compromise between opposing, and what some people might call irreconcilable, points of view. It seems to me that many of the opponents of the scheme, in their heart of hearts, do not agree with the facts of the situation in East Africa—from which we cannot get away; that is, that it is unlike West Africa. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was guilty of overlooking this point, if he will allow me to say so. East and West Africa are not the same kind of territory. They are not in any way alike—climatically, geographically or racially.
In the preamble to this scheme it is stated that these territories are:
"… the rightful home of all lawful inhabitants thereof, whatever their origin;"
The opponents of this scheme have got to make up their minds whether they agree with that fundamental assumption or whether they do not. If not—and they are entitled to take that view—then what Lord Rochester said is all right. He talked about ultimate self-government being granted to the Africans. But if you accept the assumption that these territories are,
"the rightful home of all lawful inhabitants thereof, whatever their origin,"
then you must devise a scheme of multiracial government which does not imply self-government by the Africans. I am sure the noble Lord did not intend that. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite quite accept the fundamental assumptions that we are faced here with a multi-racial problem in which the white man has every bit as much right to live on his bit of Africa as either the native or the Indian.
LORD ROCHESTER: We face that problem at the present time, but not for all time.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: For all time. You cannot conceive of any measurable time in which there will be a system under which the African section only of this multi-racial group is to have complete power over all others. And that is a denial of the whole essence of the multi-racial problem. You have to devise some means by which that power is shared by all, whatever their numbers. I maintain that the white settlers have just as much right to be in East or Central Africa as have the natives. The natives there are a congerie of tribes whose migration there is comparatively recent. They came in with a low standard of civilisation and with a very low standard of cultivation. They had not invented such a primary form of help as the wheel or plough. Their recent history shows that they have lived and cultivated by methods which have resulted in loss of soil fertility and in erosion. There is no question that but for the white immigrant the condition of these natives would be far worse than it is to-day. We all say that we are trustees for the natives, and I think we all accept that fact. But we are trustees, surely, not only for their moral and social conditions but also for their material conditions, for a steady improvement in these material conditions. But for the whites there would have been no improvement in those conditions. These natives have proved that they are incapable by themselves of making progress. I commend the fact to your Lordships that the object of this scheme for federation is to increase the real wealth of the inhabitants of the areas, including the natives.
So many of the speeches made against this proposal have ignored the economic facts of the situation. We have in Southern Rhodesia a large area of relatively infertile land. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, knows that the great bulk of the plateau of Africa is singularly infertile. It will be a problem during the next fifty or one hundred years to increase food production to provide for the increased native population that, as a result of medical progress, we can anticipate. You have in Northern Rhodesia a single industry, the extraction of copper.

749
You have Nyasaland equally largely dependent on one or two agricultural products. Surely the history of the last forty or fifty years shows that a single small unit cannot be a viable proposition. What is required is as diversified industries as possible. I am bound to say that no one ought to be more anxious to see this federation, making a large economic unit, than noble Lords opposite, because they had the experience, as we did, during the inter-war years, of seeing those areas of this country which were dependent upon single industries becoming the distressed areas. It was the Midlands that, through diversity in their industries, recovered in the least time. Therefore, from the economic point of view the arguments in favour of federation are overwhelming. And yet, so far as I remember or have heard, not a single one of the critics of this scheme of federation has applied his mind, or at all events his speech, to explaining how, without federation, it will be possible to get that economic strength that we all believe to be necessary.
The same applies to finance. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, explained on Wednesday that there are large numbers of very important projects, such as the Kariba Gorge and the Kafue River Electric Scheme, which are to benefit not only Southern Rhodesia but also Northern Rhodesia and, to some extent, incidentally, Nyasaland. It will require vast sums of money, of the order not of millions of pounds but of tens of millions of pounds, to launch those schemes successfully and to see them carried through to completion. It will require more than the individual resources of Northern Rhodesia, of Nyasaland or of Southern Rhodesia; but if those three are grouped together they make a powerful unit, both from the economic and from the financial point of view. Therefore, I believe that from that point of view the case for federation is unanswerable.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, if I may say so, discussed most cogently the question of African opinion. Again, so many of the speeches from the Benches opposite criticising this scheme have confused two views of what African opinion is. African opinion is not like that in a great country having a single language, although, it would be difficult enough, at any given moment, even with the aid of Gallup Polls, to
750
ascertain opinion. There are two African opinions: one vocal, consisting of a very small number of educated or semi-educated people, who, judging by their representatives' refusal to take any part in the recent Conference in London, which I think is to be regretted, really hanker after, not a multi-racial settlement of this question but the institution of some scheme like the West African Government. There is no doubt about that at all. On the other hand, there is the opinion, if you can call it so, of the millions of silent, uneducated Africans who, after all, constitute the most important human element in the whole native problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, so rightly said, and as such small experience as I have had out there shows me, the ordinary native is both conservative and suspicious of change. But above all I would go so far as to say that he prefers a definite order.
Let me give two instances on the agricultural side. If you tell a native that the Government have issued an order for him to clip his cattle, he will understand it and he will accept it; and so long as he is adequately supervised, he will do it. But if you start trying to explain to the ordinary native the importance of rotation of crops, the subject is completely beyond his understanding. If you go further and tell the ordinary native—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will agree with me on this—that the Government want to know what he thinks about a particular proposal, his first reaction will be that the Government do not know their own mind; he will be suspicious and his native suspicion will tell him to say: "I will vote against it." Therefore, it is impossible in this House or in this country to talk about a unitary African opinion. If I may be allowed humbly to say so, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, when he said that if the district officers were allowed not only to expound but also to explain the scheme, we should find that in the vast majority of cases it would be accepted peacefully as a Government decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked, I am sure quite sincerely, about his anxiety in the present situation due to the growing distrust and suspicion. I think there is growing distrust and suspicion, but I would attribute that growing

751
distrust and suspicion to the delay in coming to a conclusion and in working out a satisfactory scheme. That delay has been taken advantage of. I am certain of this—I do not think there is any doubt about it—that, while delay may have been inevitable, advantage has been taken by the small, educated African opinion to foment that distrust and suspicion. From what I have been able to see out there, I believe that what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said is true: that this is probably the last chance. I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that if this matter is delayed things will come right. The longer a decision is delayed. in my humble view, the more distrust and suspicion will be sown; and eventually a situation will be reached where, however able the district officers are, it will be impossible to put over a scheme of federation at all.
Of course, the other danger in delay is the question of the attitude of Southern Rhodesia. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, to talk about the opponents of the scheme, in Southern Rhodesia, but the scheme is supported by the Southern Rhodesian Government at the present moment, and if we turn down the scheme here, in my view Southern Rhodesia will be unable in the long run, and possibly even in the short run, to remain a viable entity. Her resources will not be adequate for her proper development by herself, and we may well find that, as a result, Southern Rhodesians will turn in despair towards their stronger and larger neighbour in the South. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, shakes his head. After all, I can claim some slight knowledge, because I have been out there probably more than either the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, or the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and I say, with all sincerity, on such evidence as has come my way, that this is not by any means a fanciful danger.
Before I sit down, there is one thing that I must say to supplement what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said about the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, last Wednesday. Since he made his intervention, I have glanced through the text again, and I can find no words at all of any qualifying nature. He spoke about the excellent work done by the white officials but he used those words which
752
the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, quoted about the white settlers. I cannot help saying, quite definitely, that in my humble opinion remarks of that sort do an infinite amount of harm. I venture to suggest, most respectfully, that it is altogether regrettable that the noble Lord, claiming to express the views of millions of Liberal-minded people, both in this country and abroad, should, without any first-hand knowledge of the countries concerned, allow himself to make statements of this nature. Not only are they untrue but they give grounds and justification, I think, for men like the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Godfrey Huggins, to say, as he did recently:
"I would like to ask my fellow Rhodesians not to be influenced by statements made from time to time in Great Britain.…
The British people from time to time love to hug themselves on account of their own self-righteousness and sense of fair play. They suffer from a kind of unctuous rectitude which is disliked by foreigners and their overseas kinsmen."
I personally cannot believe that the Liberal Party in Southern Rhodesia, some of whose leading speakers are criticising the existing scheme, will be at all pleased to have heard a noble Lord claiming to speak on their behalf, saying nevertheless that in future they will not scruple to turn things to their own advantage.
LORD REA: Would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who unfortunately did not accept my explanation, that nothing was further from my mind than to accuse white settlers in general of any such conduct. If the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Viscount would read on to the next column in Hansard, they would see that I am perfectly justified in refusing to be put amongst those who always say that the white man is wrong and that the foreigner is right, and I make a great point that people who can see in the hand of the white man nothing but a whip are taking a quite unrealistic attitude. I really must refuse to be put into that category.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: No doubt the people concerned will read the noble Lord's explanation, but in view of the situation I think it would have been much better had he not used those particular

753
words. On the contrary, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said so well on Wednesday, the ordinary Englishman emigrating to Rhodesia, anxious to make a home for himself, for his children and for his children's children (because it is a country and a climate which, so far as we know, is capable of sustaining a white population for a long period, being quite unlike West Africa), does not suddenly lose all the characteristics of tolerance and of Christian faith which have made our nation so great in the past. We have a Church on our estate in South Africa, and we know the value of the work that is being done in that direction. I am sure it will be agreed by those who know their Southern Rhodesia that relations between the settlers and the natives are, on the whole, warm and friendly, otherwise how could we get the necessary amount of labour to carry on our agricultural industry? How otherwise could we get men coming down from Nyasaland voluntarily to work in increasing numbers on our farms than as a result of the stories that have gone back to Nyasaland telling of the way in which they have been treated? On the whole, that is a common experience.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: And walking all the way.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: Walking there and back. They are now asking to be allowed to bring their wives, their children and their old people to set up Nyasaland villages on our farms. That is not evidence of distrust and suspicion; that is evidence of warm and friendly feelings between the settlers and the natives. I believe that British settlers are proud of their British traditions, that they are still conscious of the ideals of Cecil Rhodes, and that they are anxious to develop their new country, their new homes and their new fellow-inhabitants in a spirit of partnership and enterprise. I earnestly beg your Lordships to trust them and to help them forward in this great new experiment in setting up a permanent multiracial country.
4.14 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I spent part of the week-end reading the speeches made in Wednesday's debate. and I think it would be the opinion of all your Lordships that, in the broad, those speeches
754
were characterised by the absence of prejudice, by a complete absence of any desire to "flog" party views and, above all, by a spirit of abounding good will to the Africans. I can only say for myself that I am sure that to-day's debate will take the same line. I sincerely hope that the debate will be most carefully read and studied by all those concerned before the next Conference takes place. I hope that, so far as it lies in the power of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that that is done, they will take what steps they can to that end.
I said that I thought the speeches were free from prejudice, but there was one exception. I am bound to confess that I thought the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, revealed traces of prejudice, so much so that I wrote to the noble Earl that I should feel bound to call attention to that fact to-day. I feel some doubt, however, whether the noble Earl has received my letter. Therefore, I will greatly moderate what I had it in mind to say. as on no account should I like to run the risk of criticising a noble Lord unless I were quite sure that he had had notice of my intention to do so. But I think I may fairly say that the noble Earl admitted that he set out to be "very wounding" (those were his words), and in referring to the speeches of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and the noble Earl, the Lord Listowel, the noble Earl considered they had done "a good deal of mischief"; that they had not "encouraged … reconciliation or good feeling" that they showed "fatuous and irresponsible hostility," especially in representing that Europeans "cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the Africans."
My Lords, that is a travesty of the speeches in question. The speech of the right reverend Prelate was instinct with a spirit of humanity and of fairness, and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was equally distinguished for being cool, temperate and wise. In not one single word did either of the speakers attempt to arouse any prejudice whatsoever, and in fact the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, was unable to quote anything to support his statement to that effect. I should like to recommend to the noble Earl, in all friendliness, that he should read a book by E. M. Forster called:

755
Two Cheers for Democracy, in which the following passage occurs:
"If you don't like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don't try to love them; you can't, you'll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them."
I think that is admirable advice, not only for the noble Earl, but for anyone engaged in the practice of politics. Since I am referring to the speeches in that debate, may I for one moment refer to the noble Marquess, who described Lord Listowel's speech as being "Cassandra-like"? I am sure the noble Marquess's classical education is far superior to my own, but may I remind him that the trouble about Cassandra was not what she prophesied, but that Apollo laid a curse upon her that she would never be believed; and it was in consequence of that that, although she prophesied rightly about the Trojan War, Troy was lost. Perhaps the noble Marquess will recollect, when he is thinking over the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that Cassandra was right: the only trouble was that the people did not believe her.
This question of Central African federation involves far more than administrative arrangements; it involves policy conceptions calling for bold conceptions and bold handling. The noble Marquess said on Wednesday that many of the speakers had either not read, or at any rate did not dilate very much at length upon, the proposals in the White Paper. I will not go into that to-day; time does not permit. But I have read the White Paper with the greatest attention, and I say at once that, if we are to have federation, I think these are workmanlike proposals, and they show in many directions a wish to hold the scales perfectly evenly between European and African, and to ensure, so far as can be done on paper, that the African does not suffer too greatly from discriminatory legislation. There is one thing upon which, if I may, I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question. It is this. He mentioned the question of paramountcy, which is, of course, of great importance in considering the proposals of the White Paper. He said that it was not a question of the paramountcy of the African or the paramountcy of the European and added:
"I repudiate both those principles."
756
As I understand it, the position is this. In September, 1948, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was asked a Question on this subject, apropos the announcement of the Secretary for Native Affairs in Northern Rhodesia that the doctrine of paramountcy was dead. And the reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies was this. He said that the Secretary for Native Affairs in Northern Rhodesia had said that the White Paper of 1923 on this question was dead, in the sense that it had been superseded by the Report of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament of 1931, which is now the operative document, and that paragraph 73 of that Report contained the following passage: "The doctrine of paramountcy means no more than that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population should not be subordinated to those of a minority belonging to another race however important in itself."
I hope that the noble Marquess, with his great sense of fairness, may be able to tell us that, while he does repudiate the principle of paramountcy for African and European alike, he stands by that reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that that is the authoritative and operative view in regard to paramountcy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It certainly was not my intention to repudiate anything that had been said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But the noble Lord will understand that I was using the word "paramountcy" in a much broader sense. The noble Lord will have read the report of the speech made by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and the impression I gained from that was that, in his view, in Central Africa the interests of the Africans must prevail. What I wanted to make clear was that I do not believe—I do not say it is the right view, but it is the view I hold—that the interests of the Africans should always prevail. Nor do I think that the interests of the Europeans should always prevail. I believe in a partnership between the two. No doubt, as I have already explained, we are at present the senior partner in the way of development, because we are a more progressive country than they are. But I should like basis of partnership between the two to see Central Africa grow up on the races. That is really all I meant.
LORD WINSTER: I thank the noble Marquess very sincerely for the courtesy of his reply. I felt that his words were possibly liable to misconstruction. I thank him for, as I understand, affirming that he supports the reply given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in replying on this question of paramountcy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not referring to the more technical aspect. As I say, the word was used in a broad sense. I was not really dealing with this particular point at all.
LORD WINSTER: I think the exchange leaves the matter on a completely satisfactory basis.
Passing from the details of the White Paper to the economics of the affair, I say at once that I think the economic arguments in regard to federation are very strong indeed. I am greatly impressed by them; I think the three territories are complementary as regards supply and demand for labour. In many respects, I believe, their individual economies are unbalanced, though I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that more yet could be clone by co-operation without necessarily having federation. Yet I think federation would promote economic location of industries and efficient distribution of labour, while a stable economy over a large area would attract investment and provide a market for our exports. So I say at once that I am strongly impressed by the economic arguments in favour of federation.
Let us look at British commitments in regard to racial policy, which is so much an issue in this matter. These are definite beyond all dispute. The policy of equal rights for members of all races has frequently been asserted in the past by the United Kingdom Government, and has been incorporated in many treaties with the rulers of native races. May I briefly recall to your Lordships' memory Queen Victoria's Proclamation when annexing Natal in 1843. The Proclamation said:
"There shall not be in the eye of the Law any distinction of colour, origin, language or creed, but the protection of the Law in letter and in substance shall be extended impartially to all alike."
Mr. Churchill, when holding the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies, said:
"There is only one ideal that the British Empire can set before itself, that there should
758
be no barrier of race, colour or creed which should prevent any man of merit from reaching any station if he is fitted for it."
I think that declaration is quite impeccable. But recent years have witnessed in several territories a decline from these ideals. A colour bar policy which, in my opinion, is a corruption in life, has taken firm root in the Union of South Africa and also in Southern Rhodesia. Here, policies of racial segregation deny to coloured British subjects and British protected persons that equality of rights, opportunity and citizenship which we are pledged by so many treaties to accord to all subjects of the Queen.
The problem, I agree, is not only one of how the African feels. The European must not be made to become discouraged about the future. I entirely agree about that. Progress in Africa depends upon the European, as well as upon the African, and the aim must be to raise African living standards without depressing those of the European upon whom the economic development of Africa so largely depends. May I remind your Lordships that Mr. Creech-Jones, when Secretary of State for the Colonies, fully endorsed these views when he said:
"European settlement is imperative for welfare and advancement."
think there is great force in words used by a considerable authority upon Colonial matters, Miss Margery Perham, who said that the British citizen at home in,
"endeavouring to impose his standard of racial justice upon white communities in Africa is using the political power of the State to enforce sacrifices of the gravest kind which he will never have to share himself, and that in a situation of which he has no personal experience."
Those words, I think, are extremely wise. The English in Southern Rhodesia need not be thought of as so very different from the English at home here. If one were to go canvassing in a constituency in Southern Rhodesia I expect that a cross-section of Europeans whom one canvassed would be found to be extraordinarily similar to a cross-section of Europeans in an urban or rural community in this country. I think what is dangerous in racial relations in Africa is a certain lack of awareness in European officials, who are so skilled, so incorruptible and so just in their administration, yet at the same time fail in their personal relationships with Africans. One wishes they

759
were more imbued with a sense of working with the African, rather than with the sense of the ideal which they so nobly uphold of working for the African. I think that the ability to work with the African while at the same time working for the African is a matter of the utmost importance for the future.
In considering the provisions of the White Paper, the Committee on the Central African Association hints that reserved powers in Colonial Constitutions have been weak and ineffective. But the new proposals,
"guarantee that no right, privilege or opportunity which Africans now enjoy will be abated or circumscribed in any way."
That strikes me as perhaps a little negative. I do not know that the Africans enjoy many rights, privileges or opportunities at the present moment, and I do not think it is a question of not taking these limited rights away. Surely we want them to have more. In this respect, I am sure that nothing worries the Africans more than the security of their rights in land. We must not be surprised if Africans fear for their land under federation. They have seen the laws which protected their rights altered so that their land could be alienated. Land and labour dominate the African mind and there is great force in the saying, attributed to an African, that,
"When the white man came, they had the Bible and we had the land: now we have the Bible and they have the land."
They think that a Federal Government controlling finance, development and economy will be able to influence other Governments in regard to land policy, and that as it will also regulate immigration, there will be claims for African lands which even the United Kingdom Government will find themselves unable to resist.
The Africans see that even to-day the Government of Northern Rhodesia can grant to non-natives occupational rights in native trust lands and grant land in native reserves to corporations. And these rights have been assumed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia by Orders in Council as recently as 1947 and 1951. Such things give the Africans a sense of insecurity, not allayed by the incautious remark by a certain European representative that African land must be taken for European settlement. However that
760
may be, they have seen proposals to take control of forest reserves inside the native trust lands, coupled with the suggested demarcation of national game parks in the reserves. What the African wants is to retain the native land rights conferred on him of old by treaties between the British Government and the chiefs. I think they have good cause to fear that those rights may be vitiated under federation.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: The noble Lord has just destroyed one of the arguments of those who oppose federation. If this happens under the Colonial Office, then it could not be worse under a Federation.
LORD WINSTER: "Better the devil you know than the devil you do not know." I would not be too sure of what the noble Viscount says.
I want to enlarge on the matter of African representation. I fear that here again the African may well feel some uneasiness. In Southern Rhodesia only 4,000 Africans are on the electoral roll, so that if they all voted, they could effect little indeed against European wishes. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that the reason so few took the trouble to get on the electoral roll was because they were not politically-minded. There may be another reason. They may feel they can do so little against the vast majority by which they are faced. In any case, Africans are practically excluded from the franchise by the income qualification of £250 a year. The educational qualification has also been tightened up. Again that has been done by an ordinance as recently as 1951. On this question of representation, I think the African may well feel nervous.
Look at the arrangement about the Federal Legislature. There are to be seven elected members for African interests, three for Southern Rhodesia and two each for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The three Southern Rhosedian members will be elected under regulations made by the Governor. Only two of them will be Africans; the other will be European. The two representatives from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be elected under regulations made by the Governor, from a body which he designates as being representative of the African community. While I should be the last person in the world to

761
throw doubt on the good intentions of the Governors concerned, I think we must put ourselves in the shoes of the African, and I consider that he may well feel some doubt about his representation under such regulations as these. The three Africans on the African Affairs Board will not be elected by those whom they are to represent, but nominated by the three Governors, and will sit on that Board in a minority of three to four.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Is the noble Lord now talking about the African Affairs Board? He says that the Africans will be in a minority. If he reads the White Paper, he will see that it is exactly the opposite. He will notice that on all occasions the chairman has to vote with the Africans to keep the matter under discussion.
LORD WINSTER: I agree with the noble Earl on that point. In case of disagreement the Chairman must always vote with the Africans.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, may I also point out that the Governor is not to be elected by the Southern Rhodesians? He is to be nominated by the Home Government and. presumably, that should be adequate guarantee that the Africans will get justice done.
LORD WINSTER: I am well aware that the Governor is appointed by the Governor-General. Let me go on to the question of partnership, for a moment. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has defined his idea of partnership as,
"the total rejection of any form of racial domination and suppression and a sincere acceptance of the fact that black and white are indispensable to each other and that each must, by his conduct and actions, earn the confidence and good will of the other."
It is a matter of common agreement that Southern Rhodesia has done much in subsidising education, health and agriculture, and the Sunday Times has described the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia as,
"the unwearying champion of inter-racial partnership."
When I look at the racial legislation in Southern Rhodesia, however, I am bound to say that it appears to me to have far more in common with, than difference from, that of the Union of South Africa. The European and African races are segregated into two areas by what is
762
called, not segregation, but "parallel development." Under this "parallel development" 136,000 Europeans have 48,000,000 acres, and 2,000,000 Africans have 37,000,000 acres. Naturally, the Africans believe that future European immigrants are likely to absorb much of the 17 per cent. of land still unallocated.
There is segregation in housing. As I understand it, an African may not own land in a town. He may live near a town only if he is employed by a European. Certain occupations are reserved for Europeans. In extensive municipal areas no African trade union is legally recognised. Forced labour is imposed upon unemployed Africans. They may not grow certain crops which would compete with European production. An African must have a pass to go from one district to another, or from one part of a town to another. He cannot be elected to the Legislature. I ask the question—because I should like to be convinced on the point, and I put it in perfectly good faith: How can these things be reconciled with partnership, or with what the Prime Minister has described as "the total rejection of any policy of racial domination and suppression"?
These are the things with which the African is faced in his daily life. It is not fear of the unknown, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, but fear of the known, the knowledge of the circumstances of his daily life, which operates in his mind. I believe that those things weigh more heavily with him than the subsidies and the generous provision that the South African Government has made in regard too the matters I have mentioned. In view of these things, I am bound to say that I nib my eyes when I notice the remark of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—and these were his actual words:
"The picture these critics draw of racial antagonism and repressive Government policy is a pure figment of their imagination."
I really cannot reconcile that statement with the facts I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships regarding racial legislation at this moment in Rhodesia, facts which inevitably arouse the lively suspicions of the African as to what may happen to him under federation.
There is another question which has been touched upon to-day—namely, to what extent it is possible to gauge

763
African opinion accurately. That is a most important question in this matter. It seems to me that there are three bodies of opinion here. First, there are those who say that the Africans are incapable of forming an opinion on the federation proposals; that opposition is the work of a minority of agitators; that the bulk of the African population is indifferent, so their opinion can be ignored; that federation is going to produce great economic benefits in which the Africans will share; and, therefore, that we ought to go ahead regardless of African opinion. I found an echo of that view in the debate on Wednesday. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said:
"Federation should be backed irrespective of the masses who cannot understand or even be told in detail."
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in speaking of the White Paper gave us his reasons as to
"why it ought to be acceptable to the Africans."
In those two remarks I caught an echo of the celebrated footlerism of Mr. Douglas Jay that "The gentleman in Whitehall knows best"; they suggest that federation must be imposed whether the African agrees about it or not.
A second group, in my opinion, go to the opposite extreme, and are almost more African than the African himself. They wave aside all the difficulties and complexities of the situation, and are too easily guided by anything which is represented as African opinion, without questioning Whether it is representative or responsible. There is then the third group of those who wish to be constructive, whose views were fairly represented by what was written in The Times in October last year. They consider that the Africans generally undoubtedly oppose federation. They are not prepared to overrule African opposition but they are not prepared to consider the African side alone. They consider that the views of all racial groups must be taken account of and they believe a multi-racial society is quite possible if gone about the right way.
The fulfilment of these aims requires patience, tolerance and statesmanship, and I fear that the last quality is all too often in short supply. But I consider that it is almost certainly an exaggeration to say that the Africans do not under-
764
stand the issues involved. The proposals have been explained to them by British officials throughout the territories. They have been printed in the vernacular and have been circulated. In spite of that, in Northern Rhodesia, certainly, the Africans are totally opposed to federation. As to Nyasaland, I have seen the views of their representatives. I hope that, if this debate is read in Nyasaland, it may be noted there that I think that those views were represented in far too strident and abusive terms, which were calculated to do their cause harm. But again, in the case of Nyasaland, there is no doubt whatever that the proposals for federation are resisted. They do not want Nyasaland regarded as a territory for European settlement. They have noted the Gold Coast experiment. They are out for self-government. What they want is the power which would come to them with self-government, and not paternalism.
If anything, I would say that British public opinion is hardening against federation. I notice many great bodies, including the British Council of Churches and the Church of Scotland, are all against it. I would say, with great deference, that the opinion of the missionary societies should not be lightly disregarded, in view of their amazing record of work amongst the Africans. I feel sure that the Government will not fail to avail themselves of their unique experience. The Christian Council of Northern Rhodesia, while not opposed to federation in principle—which is the attitude of so many of us in this matter—believe that it cannot be put through in the face of existing African opposition. Similarly, the Conference of British Missionary Societies says:
"Any attempt to impose federation would destroy the basis on which its success must depend,"
and would stir up difficulties for us else-where in Africa.
My own strong conviction is that for a long time only a compromise is possible. I do not happen to like compromises—I am not a compromiser by nature—but there are times when compromise is the wisest course, and I believe that this is one of them. I believe that political reforms should precede federation, and that that is essential if the African is to have any confidence whatever in federation proposals, now or at any other time.

765
for instance, let Northern Rhodesia extend the franchise and cease restricting it to a small British-European minority. Let the mine-owners and the European and African miners trade unions discuss schemes for advancing African miners in accordance with their abilities, and in accordance with what Mr. Churchill said on that score. Nyasaland has no franchise, although other African territories, no more advanced, have. In the three territories the two races, the Europeans and the Africans, seem to have grown up almost as separate races, although they work together in industry and agriculture and live in the same towns and villages. Let the existing discrimination in public places be abolished—in schools, in hospitals, in hotels, I believe even in cemeteries, and also in cinemas: let them all be swept away, and educational differentials, too. Bring the Africans in the towns into local government and on to the town councils, and let the two races discuss the Constitution of the Central Government.
What we have to guard against is mutual racial dislike. If we continue to humiliate the African in this way—and he is humiliated by these racial laws, and this discrimination and segregation—he will become possessed with a will to humiliate the European. The two races must learn to live and work together in equality, respecting each other's dignity. The alternative, to my mind, is racial hatred and catastrophe.
The proposals attributed to the Northern Rhodesian Government, in a state-merit on partnership, are, I think, most wise, and they make free, wide and generous proposals indeed; but I wonder what has been done to discuss and try to work out something on the basis of those proposals? This is not, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, a matter of warm and friendly and even affectionate relations; it is a matter of allowing Africans to co-operate in political, racial and economic affairs. The master—servant, parent—child, approach arouses resentment, as does anything in the nature of patronage and a superiority complex. Having said that, let me say that Africans, equally, must accept that Europeans have developed the country, have settled in it for good, and must share in its future. But noblesse oblige, and it is for Europeans to make the first move. Equally, let Her Majesty's Government again
766
affirm its intention to resist any racial domination and to retain and exert its present powers in regard to racial legislation until the partnership policy has been worked out and made a fact.
In conclusion, let me say this. I should like to end upon a hopeful note. The proposals, and the discussion to which they have given rise, have revealed that great numbers of Africans instinctively look to this country when their fears are aroused about actions and policies in Africa. They distrust anything which they feel may weaken theft links with the Crown and with the United Kingdom Parliament. They still have confidence in us as the safeguard of their rights while they are so inexperienced in political and economic affairs, and they fear the disappearance of those British officials who at present help and guide them, but who will disappear with federation. These inter-racial problems provoke feelings of anxiety and perplexity. Let us not forget that to be harassed by them is in itself a sign of progress. At one time such problems were solved by the argumentum ad baculinum. They were solved by methods of enslavement or extermination. They have now advanced into the sphere of human conscience, as this debate, with all the differences of opinion it has revealed, has most clearly shown. There is dawning in Africa an idea of a common life and of co-operation, as well as of conflict. The trouble is that the conflict is news, so we hear about it. The evidence of a common life and a spirit of co-operation is not news, and so we do not hear about it. Now that that idea of the common life and co-operation is growing, may we do nothing which will interfere with it. It is because I do believe that federation imposed at this moment would check that progress that I hope the Government will at this late moment hesitate and decide upon a policy of racial reform before proceeding with their federation proposals.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, intervening towards the end of a two-day debate, it is a little difficult to find something fresh to say, particularly as the point of view of those who are in favour of federation has been so ably put by the noble Marquess, my Leader, last Wednesday, and again with such added vim by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, this

767
afternoon. Having listened to, or read, every speech in the debate it is interesting to me, at any rate, to reflect upon the views so unanimously put forward by the Opposition. "We are trustees for the Africans" is the theme which has run through every speech, and there is no question that in their minds and, indeed, in our minds as well, "We" stands for politicians in Whitehall and civil servants in Whitehall. As for trusteeship, the views of the Opposition are evidently not that we should be permanent trustees: they aim at a time—in some cases not far distant—when control will be surrendered to someone else.
They have their eyes on what has occurred on the Gold Coast. I have not yet been to the Gold Coast, and therefore I cannot speak with great definiteness about it. But there are one or two things that all of us know to be true about the Gold Coast, and one is that it is not a white man's country. Another is that what has happened in the Gold Coast is still in the very earliest days of experiment; and, thirdly, that in no sense does a democracy exist in the Gold Coast. A democracy demands the existence of two parties—a Government and an Opposition. But in the Gold Coast and such territories there is only one policy put forward by the African politician, and that is to turn out the white man from political power and assume it himself. It is only when he has succeeded in doing that—as in the case, for instance, of India and Pakistan—that an opposition begins to arise and the true by-plays of democracy begin to operate. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, even went so far as to express the hope that in the not distant future conditions of India and Pakistan would be reproduced in Central Africa.
LORD ROCHESTER: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I did not use the words "not distant future." I asked only that the door should not be closed, and that the die should not be cast to prevent intervention.
LORD BLACKFORD: Let us accept that. I do not mind that so much. But the fact is that at the present time Europeans exist in India and Pakistan on sufferance only. Otherwise it would never be the case that the shares of such a magnificent company as the Calcutta
768
Electric Supply stand on nearly a 12 per cent. basis. The reason they do so is the lack of confidence in the shareholders and the fear that they may receive the same treatment as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company were allowed to receive at Abadan.
From the speeches of noble Lords opposite, it is clear that when they speak of the Africans, their minds are confined to the Barotse, the Mashona and the Matabeles of the Rhodesias. I came back from Africa last year in the same ship as the Springbok rugby side. Including their two managers, there were thirty-two of them. Ten of them had English names and the remaining twenty-two had Dutch names. They conversed naturally in Afrikaans. Incidentally, they gave the lie entirely to Dr. Malan's insane policy of setting one set of whites against another. They all got on extremely well together. Their manager and captain, both of whom were English-horn, were beloved by all of them, and when I saw them in their final match at Cardiff they were loud in their expressions of loyalty to this country. A nicer set of boys you could not meet.
Now, who were these boys if they were not Africans? That is the point I want to make. All of them were born and bred in Africa, of parents who had themselves lived in Africa, going back three or four generations. One of these boys was a Rhodesian. Except the two managers, I do not think any of them had been to England before. If anybody was an African, these boys were Africans, and that is the point that noble Lords opposite seem to me to lose sight of in their arguments directed to the support of the black Africans. They will always persist in talking of the white Africans as Europeans. I object to that word "European" applied to the men who have settled down and lived in Africa for generations. South Africa and Rhodesia are white man's countries. They can live there as they cannot do in the Gold Coast or in India. The circumstances in those places are different and, therefore, different treatment must be accorded to them.
White Africans have every bit as much right to be in Africa as have black Africans; and to pretend otherwise is just as reasonable as to say that the multifarious races inhabitating the United States have no right to be there because

769
the Red Indians were there before them; or that the New Zealanders have no right to be there because the Maoris were there before them. These men are African. They intend to stay there. They have no other place to go to—and we have to reckon with that fact and that intention to stay there. Moreover, they will not stay there in any subordinate capacity; they will not allow themselves to be left there on sufferance, as in the case of India or Pakistan, or be kicked out altogether, as we were by a small clique of students in Burma. Incidentally, the production of rice in Burma has fallen from 3,250,000 tons in the last year of British control to 1,250,000 tons this year, thereby causing great inconvenience to the economy of India.
Having established to my own satisfaction, and I trust to that of noble Lords opposite, the position with regard to white Africans, let me go on to consider the relative contributions of these two sets of Africans. What have the white Africans contributed? They have contributed courage, enterprise, knowledge, initiative and perhaps, above all, capital to the development of that savage territory. Where would the black Africans be but for the whites in these territories? What have the whites brought about? They have brought about great wealth. Great wealth has been produced in that country for the benefit of the world. No doubt they have also created some wealth for themselves—let us not deny that—but they have produced great wealth for the benefit of mankind. They raised and are raising the status of the African. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who opened the debate to-day talked about the Africans being mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Hitherto, that has been the case to a large extent. But one must not forget that one of the reasons for that is that craftsmen going out to Rhodesia refuse to allow Africans to be taught their crafts. That has certainly been the case, and we should keep that in mind when talking of Africans as being hewers of wood and drawers of water. It would be much to the advantage of the white Africans if black Africans were to become craftsmen—bricklayers, carpenters and so forth; and I hope that when this federation scheme is completed this will be brought about.
There is a further point which I wish to make: that is, that the contribution
770
made by white Africans to the prosperity of Africa in comparison with that made by the black Africans, is totally disproportionate, and that therefore their opinion should be weighed accordingly in contrast to that of the black African. Reference has been made many times to this question of black African opinion. Oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had to call to his aid an octogenarian friend of his who had talked with Livingstone and whose grandfather had contracted a treaty with Queen Victoria. I think the noble Lord must know that a very great deal of water has rolled over the Victoria Falls since his octogenarian friend talked with Dr. Livingstone in 1873.
LORD OGMORE: May I point out that my octogenarian friend is the present paramount chief of the tribe of the Barotse, so he has present as well as hereditary knowledge?
LORD BLACKFORD: I am not saying anything against him. But I doubt whether the noble Lord was consistent in calling him as an example. If I had said to him years ago that I thought I ought to be allowed to keep my coalmine because my grandfather had started it, and there was a strong sentimental attachment in favour of it, I doubt whether should have carried the noble Lord with me. Therefore, I do not attach undue importance to the opinion of the octogenarian paramount chief of the Barotse. We know that African opinion is usually that of a few examination-bred students, and that 999 black Africans out of 1,000 are good-humoured and rather lazy children, having no opinion worth having on any political matter at all. It is idiotic to pretend that they have this knowledge. But to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and others talk, one would think the natives of Africa were always black Englishmen, so to speak. with our experience, our nous and political balance, and so on.
LORD WINSTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I must point out that there was no single word in my speech calculated to give such an impression. If the noble Lord thinks so, let him quote it.
LORD BLACKFORD: will read the noble Lord's speech to-morrow. My impression, when he referred to omissions

771
from the White Paper, was that there was a long list of matters which he thought might have been inserted. I do not know whether this was the impression he intended to leave, but he certainly gave me the impression that the black African knew a great deal more than people usually realise of the usages of civilised society. I am all in favour of that. We are on very delicate ground. The question of the colour bar is extremely difficult. The colour bar is now very much less than it was when I was in India, forty years ago. That can be said without any doubt whatever. I have not enough experience of Africa to speak so definitely, but it would not surprise me if the colour bar is decreasing there. It is my custom to visit an aged relative of mine living in the neighbourhood of Earl's Court. That is a very favourite residential district for coloured students; and my observations there certainly do not give me the impression that the colour bar is much in evidence in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked Lord Milverton whether the noble Lord would enforce this scheme no matter what the Africans say.
LORD PAKENHAM: I said, against the Africans.
LORD BLACKFORD: It is the same thing. As a matter of fact, the Africans are not all against this scheme. The Southern Rhodesian Africans would appear not to be against it. Honestly, I would not attach too much weight to African opinion. It must be remembered that white African opinion is not all in favour of this scheme. I have received only by the last post a letter from a young nephew of mine in Southern Rhodesia, who tells me that a great many of the older men in Southern Rhodesia are not in favour of federation but are in favour of joining the Union. I am sure that no noble Lord opposite would wish that to happen. Ideally, in the long run, there is no doubt that the best thing would be a great union of Africa, stretching from Lake Victoria Nyanza, right down to Cape Town; but, as long as we have insane politicians like Dr. Malan about, it is quite impossible to make any approach to that ideal. None the less, there is the fact that, according to my nephew a number of the older men in
772
Southern Rhodesia are in favour of joining the Union and are not in favour of federation. On the other hand, he tells me that the younger men are mostly against Dr. Malan and in favour of federation. There is to be a referendum on the subject. We have to await the result of that referendum, but, assuming that it is in favour of federation, then, to my mind, that would clinch the matter, and l should answer the noble Lord—he did not ask me and I do not suppose he cares what I think—by saying that I should support the Government in carrying through federation provided it is heartily supported by white African opinion, even in the face of the opposition of black African opinion, because I believe that in the long run the white African, the Briton, has to lead or perish.
LORD PAKENHAM: Before the noble Lord concludes, may I just say that I certainly care what he thinks. That is why I am always so sorry to differ from him, as on this occasion. I wonder whether he recalls what the late Secretary of State for the Colonies said in 1950 when he was announcing the establishment of a Committee of officials. Although it was the statement of a Labour Secretary of State to the Colonies, I am not aware that it was contested by noble Lords opposite. Mr. Griffiths said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 480, Col. 947]:
"This will include consultation with African opinion in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in accordance with His Majesty's Government statement made in the House of Commons that full account would he taken of it before any change affecting African interests could be considered."
Does the noble Lord object to that?
LORD BLACKFORD: In answer to that, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, as I have had occasion to do many times previously, that I speak only for myself. I am not concerned about any remark of a previous Secretary of State or even with what the noble Marquess below me says. I give your Lordships' House only my views. If your Lordships think they are not worth hearing, no harm is done. I cannot be cross-examined about what some past Minister may or may not have said. I am not in the slightest degree bound by his opinion. I am bound only by my own.
LORD SINHA: May I intervene for a moment? The noble Lord made a remark which I find I cannot properly allow to pass without challenge, that British interests in India were thinking of drawing out because they were affected by being discriminated against. I myself am a director of a number of British companies out there and have trusted friends in others, and, to my knowledge, there is not a single company, including the P. and O. and other very large companies, which is thinking of leaving or considers that it is being discriminated against.
LORD BLACKFORD: I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that Europeans remain in India and Pakistan on sufferance; and that that fact is appreciated by investors is shown by the fact that a magnificent company like the Calcutta Electric Supply stands on a nearly 12 per cent. yield basis, showing what a strong element of political risk is in the minds of investors. I did not say that any company has come out of India or Pakistan or thinks of coming out of India or Pakistan. Indian tea companies almost all stand on a very high yield basis largely for the same reason; and I assert, without fear of contradiction, that investors in British companies in India and Pakistan remain only on sufferance of the two Governments, just as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company remained in Persia only on sufferance of the Persian Government, as we saw last year.
LORD SINHA: I would point out that the electric supply company have invested many millions of pounds quite recently in India.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I intervene on that point, because I have contrary evidence? A leading British business man in Calcutta told me that there was more good will—which is important from the point of view of British business—since India became self-governing, than before.
LORD BLACKFORD: I am willing to agree to that. It appears that there is much better feeling towards the British now than before they cleared out. I agree with that. But some noble Lords always look only one inch before their noses and not five inches. That is their trouble. Good will obtains there now because we are behaving like good boys,
774
and so far things have been prosperous; but we are told that Communism is gaining ground in India. When Mr. Nehru eventually departs, who will be the next Prime Minister of India? May he not be a Doctor Mossadeq? We had perfectly good relations with Persia—but we must not labour this question because we are talking about federation. All the remarks I made are perfectly accurate and I do not withdraw a single word of them.
5.18 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, I desire to add the voice of a humble but firmly convinced Conservative to the appeal that has been made to Her Majesty's Ministers to think again about federation. I come from the Gold Coast and I am very proud to do so. I have been a missionary and I am about to "meddle" in politics. I have no direct knowledge of the territories under discussion, but I am not under the impression that the Gold Coast is the only part of Africa, or that conditions in one part of Africa are the same as those in another. I have worked in Uganda and have been a grateful guest of settlers in Kenya. I have nothing to say against the white African settlers with whom I have had the privilege of staying, except this: that I do not believe that they are as wise guides on the matter of black African political and educational advancement as are the Colonial Services.
Not having been to these territories myself, I naturally studied the papers that I could obtain and I would assure noble Lords who are sitting on these Benches that my attitude is not based on any strange doctrine. It is based upon a principle which is enshrined in the Preamble to this scheme. Point (e) of the Preamble stales:
"Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments responsible among other matters for local and territorial political advancement, so long as their respective peoples so desire."
Why should the desire of these respective peoples be considered after federation and not in regard to federation? Would Her Majesty's Government say to these people: "We are going to impose federation upon you though you may object to it but, of course, we promise that we would never impose anything else upon you afterwards?" I suggest that that would be an impossible

775
attitude. What noble Lords who have made this appeal to the Government desire is that the opinions of the peoples (and note the words in the preamble, "the peoples", not "the Legislature") shall be respected. We are told by various noble Lords that there is no such thing as African opinion. I can only assure those of your Lordships who take that view that it is some forty or fifty years out of date. It was a remark which was frequently made in the days when I first went to the Gold Coast, but it is a remark which is not made there now.
My Lords, there is an African opinion, and every indication that comes to us is that in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland, despite the multiplicity of tongues to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ruffside referred, despite the traditional hostility of the Mashona and the Matabele, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Winterton, referred, that opinion is unanimously, or almost unanimously, against this scheme. The question facing the Government is, should such opposition be overridden. I had intended to argue before your Lordships that African opposition to this scheme was natural; but I need not do so because that has been done, with far greater ability than I could have done it, by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. I would point out, however, in addition to what the noble Lord said, that the hard, unpleasant facts of life for the African in Southern Rhodesia are not to be learned only from vocal students or from meddlesome missionaries, but are all stated quite clearly in White Paper Command 8235.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, was taken to task by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for venturing to base some of his remarks upon a letter written by interested parties to The Times. That letter was written by people whose presence had been desired at the Conference at Lancaster House; but what is more important than the authorship of the letter is whether the statements made in it are or are not true. I assure your Lordships that on studying this Command Paper you will find that every statement made in the first paragraph of that letter is supported there. Let us not then delude ourselves by thinking that African opinion is not against this scheme, or that it has taken up an entirely unreason-
776
able attitude. It is true that the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia has stated in magnificent language, language which has the ring of sincerity, the principle of partnership. On page 6 of the White Paper he is quoted as saying:
"We are anxious to build up this country on the basis of a partnership between the various races, not to use colour as a test of a man's ability and culture. We can only develop and hold this country as partners."
If your Lordships will turn to page 5 of the White Paper to which I have referred, you will find that what its authors say—and they are not vocal black Africans or meddlesome missionaries, is this:
"To-day, if we judge from the statements of the Prime Minister quoted in paragraph 9 below, Southern Rhodesian policy for the future does not differ materially from the stated aims of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland."
I would beg your Lordships to note particularly those words:
"if we judge from the statements of the Prime Minister "
and
"for the future."
However backward in certain respects the African may be, I do not think I idealise him. If your Lordships look back to your own school days, I think you will consider that your teachers were the people least liable to hold illusions about yourselves. The African is a realist, and he is not satisfied with statements of policy for the future; he would like to see performance.
My Lords, we have been told by the noble Marquess that the Southern Rhodesian Government have spent more than the two Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland on African social services. Of course that statement is perfectly correct. But it looks a little different if you study this Command Paper and find the percentage of the expenditure which is devoted in these various territories to these objects. The estimated expenditure in 1950 in Nyasaland comes to a total of something over £3,000,000, and of that 16.5 per cent. was to be devoted to the social services benefiting Africans; in Northern Rhodesia, out of a total of £14,000,000, 11.9 per cent. was to be spent in that was, and in Southern Rhodesia, where the total was £22,000,000, the percentage to be spent on social services for Africans was 12.1.

777
I suggest that the opposition of Africans in the Northern territories to the native policy of Southern Rhodesia is justified, and I suggest that to impose federation on the people of those territories in the teeth of African opposition would be not only inconsistent with the clause which I have quoted from the preamble to the scheme, but unwise and wrong. What a start for partnership! The economic advantages which it is hoped will come from federation would surely be endangered. On the first day of our debate the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said that because of instability in the Union of South Africa the flow of capital from overseas needed for the development of the Union had dried up. I wonder what the noble Lord considers is the element of instability in the Union of South Africa? I should have thought that it was inter-racial bitterness, and that inter-racial bitterness might very greatly endanger the economy of these territories.
As for the political advantages, we know the desirability of having a strong bloc in that part of the Continent. But what will be the use of that unless it is a bloc of people united and happy in their association together? What is needed first is not the federation of these territories but the closer association of these races. I suggest that, without African support, the federated territory of Central Africa will resemble the description given by Edmund Burke to one of Pitt's Ministries:
"A piece of joinery so crossly indented and whimsically dove-tailed, such a piece of diversified mosaic, such a tesselated pavement without cement; here a bit of black stone and there a bit of white—indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch and unsure to stand upon."
I suggest that to create a Federation in such circumstances would be unwise, because it would spread alarm among the African subjects of the Queen and her protected subjects throughout Africa, undoing a great deal of the good that has been done in their minds by the grant of liberal constitutions to the Gold Coast. Nigeria, Tanganyika. I suggest that it would be wrong. Africans—and I have known Africans, and have taught them, from these territories, though I have never been there—seem to have very dear to their hearts two qualities: justice and loyalty. do not think they would consider it just that this scheme should be imposed upon them if it were done in
778
opposition to the wishes of most of them. I feel sure that they would regard us as being disloyal to our trust if we were to weaken the connection which subsists between them and the Colonial Office and the Government in this country.
The matter has been talked about for twenty years. Yes—but more than twenty years was spent in talking about Home Rule for Ireland, and the Party to which I belong never considered that it would he right to hand over loyal Ulstermen to a form of government they did not desire. Why should we do it to these people? Because they value their land? It is the land of their forefathers, and that cannot be said of all the inhabitants of those territories. I wonder whether your Lordships are aware that in 1950 there were 169,000 white Africans or Europeans in these territories, and in 1938 only 76,000. That means to say that twelve years before 1950 not half of them had been in that country. And I am informed that many of the miners working in the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia stay there for some eight or ten years and then go away: they are not only "cuckoos" but birds of passage also. Shall we be disloyal to these people because they rate performance above promises? Shall we be disloyal to them because they prize freedom above wealth? It is, I feel, unthinkable that we should in any way force them into this scheme.
What then can be done? Admittedly there are important arguments in favour of federation. I would venture to make this suggestion: that the advocates of federation should say, quite openly and frankly, "We find that this scheme is not approved by the majority of the Africans, therefore we will drop it and will not raise it for five years. In the meantime, we will prove what we mean by 'partnership' so far as we are able to do." If they will do that, I think there is a good chance that partnership will lead to federation. For in the letter which these African representatives wrote to The Times they said in their last paragraph:
"We prefer political reforms in each territory first."
This means that they do not exclude the ultimate possibility of a federation. I suggest that it might be possible for the advocates of federation to be content for

779
five years with something on the lines of the East African High Commission; that each of the territories should restrict immigration and take stronger measures for the protection of African land; that in Southern Rhodesia trade unions should be recognised; that the property qualification for voting should be reduced; that African representatives should be admitted and their numbers gradually increased in the territorial Legislatures. Then, I think, something might be achieved.
No doubt this would require patience on the part of Europeans in these territories. Yes, we know this matter has been discussed for twenty years; but we cannot say that partnership has been discussed for twenty years; still less that partnership has been practised for twenty years. No doubt there would have to be some forgoing of economic gain. Yes, but these people are not impoverished. The preface to this scheme states that these territories, though their economies are vulnerable, are relatively prosperous; and you will find in Command Paper 8234, at page 44, that the exports of domestic produce from Southern Rhodesia in 1938 were of the value of £10,000,000 and that in 1949 they were of the value of £29,000,000. The value of these exports from Northern Rhodesia in 1938 was about £10,000,000 and in 1949 about £32,000,000. For Nyasaland the figures were: for 1938. £960,000, and for 1949, £4,000,000.
If this period of delay were granted, through the generosity of the advocates of federation, I think they would find that their African fellows were generous. They would find that Africans, who will take little from people they do not trust, will take even unpalatable proposals from those whom they have learned to trust. I believe that great political advantage would accrue, because of the healing and the reconciliation that would come about in those territories, and that then federation might come, not as the root of partnership but as its fruit, and that we should have then done much towards the solution of the great Imperial problem of our time—which is whether we can create and hold a multi-racial Commonwealth. If we can, we shall have done much to ensure the peace of the world.
5.40 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, on his magnificent contribution to the right viewpoint and the right attitude in this matter. It is most encouraging for us on this side of the House to have his support. I should like to say frankly that I have not yet been to Africa, although I hope to go there in the near future. I feel that this is an issue of outstanding importance, although it is easy not to think that when there are so many other matters pressing for consideration. I want to direct my remarks to the question of consent. I regard this question of consent and the ascertaining of African opinion as one of basic importance. One is frightened to hear such remarks as, "I would not give too much weight to African opinion." I think that sort of approach and that tone is thoroughly frightening. After all. this is as much a humanitarian as a political issue. There appears to be a universal lack of consent to these federation proposals. The word "partnership" is a mockery if the Government intend to proceed with these proposals. There cannot be a proper partnership in these proposals when one partner has no confidence in them. Noble Lords may deny that the Africans have no confidence in these proposals, but I hope to prove to your Lordships that this is the case.
One of the prime reasons for lack of faith is that federation would deprive these territories of the rights of eventual self-government. The Africans consider that the proposals are a reversal of the traditional British Colonial policy, which is a policy of gradual movement towards self-government by the African people themselves, and that the policy of indirect rule is a stage in that development. I think there is a genuine fear of Southern Rhodesian native policy. It must be realised that Southern Rhodesia would be the senior partner in the proposed federation, and that her policy as regards race is extremely similar to that of the Union of South Africa. Nobody can deny that. Many of the laws affecting Africans in Southern Rhodesia are simply copies of laws in the Union of South Africa. If any noble Lord thinks that that is not the case I should very much like to be enlightened.

781
The differences on questions of native policy between the three territories are admitted in the White Paper. The preamble to the White Paper says:
"Certain differences in native policy between Southern Rhodesia and the Northern territories still remained, but though important, they were felt to relate largely to method and timing: the ultimate objectives of all three Governments were broadly the same—namely, the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in partnership with the Europeans."
I think that is an unfair way of putting it. Words can be clever and they are clever in this case. I am sure that anyone with an unclouded sense of values and principles would regard this as a distortion of the truth. I would suggest that "method and timing" is rather a deceitful phrase.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he rather asked for an answer. I do not accept the statement that the policy of Southern Rhodesia with regard to the natives and the policy of the Union of South Africa are the same. Take the common roll in Southern Rhodesia. It is perfectly true there is a qualification that a certain capital has to be held by the voters, but a large number of Africans have a considerable amount of money, yet only one in ten takes advantage of it. But there is a common roll. Is the noble Lord saving that there is a completely common roll in the Union of South Africa?
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I agree with the noble Marquess. Perhaps what I am going to come to a little later will tie up with the question of the common roll. In passing, I would say that the point that only one in ten take advantage of the common roll is a point that has been misrepresented. because in fact the African is not encouraged to take an interest in politics, and if he finds that he cannot go to meetings with Europeans it seems to him that politics is not his world. I maintain that it is not only a matter of difference in method arid timing. It is fundamentally a matter of principle. Though I should be the last to run down wholesale the Europeans on the spot, the facts I have gathered make me think that we cannot be proud of some of them. There is a fundamental difference between us in this country and a large proportion of the people on the
782
spot. I think the British attitude is to accept the African as a human being who is entitled to the same rights and privileges which other people claim for themselves. We think that there should be no artificial barriers. We have a sincere attitude towards education, including political education. On the other hand, some of the European settlers on the spot, a vocal and important section, adopt the attitude that the African is an inferior being who should not take part in politics, and who should be ruled by a benevolent aristocracy. That is expressed as a clear and distinct philosophy, and I feel myself basically and strongly against it.
This attitude was put in a nutshell by Sir Godfrey Huggins himself, when he said, a few years ago:
"It is time for the people in England to realise that the white man in Africa is not prepared and never will be prepared, to accept the African as an equal, either socially or politically"
These are very strong words. I should like to take this opportunity of defending the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester who on the first day of this debate was virtually accused by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, of raising the colour bar question as such. The noble Lord said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, Col. 660):
"Particularly did regret the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, because of the influences—of the prejudices (if I might say so without offence) which he dragged across the issue by his mention of the colour bar."
"By his mention of the colour bar"—I think that is an extraordinary attitude. I cannot help feeling that the Government are in danger of betraying the Africans over this issue. The idea of the trust in Africa is that we shall not line up with the European settlers any more than with anybody else. It is hard to see in the Central African Federation proposals anything but a tendency to line up with the Europeans in a distinctly biased way.
I suppose it may be assumed that if the referendum in Southern Rhodesia goes against federation—and my information is that that is quite likely—the proposals will be dropped. I am anxious to know from the Government what their intentions are if the Europeans accept the scheme and the Africans persist in their present attitude, as they undoubtedly must. I should particularly

783
like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is the case that, in spite of opposition from Africans, the Government plan and intend to go through with the federation scheme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
The best I can do is to quote what I said in my speech, and what I thought was perfectly clear. This is what I said:
"At the present stage it is very difficult to look beyond the next Conference. I am certainly not going to make—and I hope the House will not expect me to do so—any firm statement or commitment about what Her Majesty's Government do in circumstances which are still quite unknown and which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, himself said were very uncertain."
That certainly is not a commitment to go ahead in any circumstances. It is as far as any Government could go at the present stage.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I am sorry to have to put the question quite like that, because I certainly heard every word of the speech of the noble Marquess. But it seems to me that the Government will find themselves in a difficult position if people on the spot are now propagating this particular scheme, and so many noble Lords on the other side of the House are saying that African opinion does not matter. In view of that, I feel it is worth while to have had repeated what the noble Marquess said, and I thank him very much. This question of consent, and the fact that we have had African opinion belittled by several noble Lords, makes me feel that it is the outstanding issue. If federation is pressed through in the present circumstances, I believe that we shall lose the confidence of Africa for ever, because what happens in this particular part of Africa will have wide and far-reaching influence. I do not want to raise this as a Party issue, but I believe I can say, quite categorically, that my Party would not consider pressing forward with this scheme in the face of clear united African opposition.
I should like to raise a point as to the ascertaining of opinion, because I have some information on how the White Paper was put across in the territories concerned. The noble Viscount, Lord Ruffside, said last Wednesday that there were seven languages in Northern Rhodesia and that is not denied. However, he rather implied that there were, therefore, likely to
784
be as many opinions on federation. It is quite clear from reading the noble Viscount's speech in Hansard that he thinks that the language problem has made it hard for the African to know what federation is. But, as noble Lords have already said, the White Paper (not this one, but the previous one) has been printed in various languages. My information is that the copies of the translation were given to district officers in the respective languages of the districts. As there are already in existence in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Government-created organs for the expression of responsible public opinion, surely the Government would receive the reports brought through those organs. There is the district council, the provincial council, and at the top the Representative Council. These councils are regarded by the Government as both authoritative and representative at each level of African opinion.
Apparently what happened was that copies of the translation of the White Paper were given out and it was suggested that the proposals should be studied, after which there should be expressions of opinion—in the case of the district councils it was stated that there would be a district meeting in a month's time. After study, the answer in every district and every province was "No"; and this rejection by the lower bodies was confirmed by the higher body. I have here a report of a debate on closer association, from which I should like to quote. The report is virtually the Hansard of the African Representative Council of Northern Rhodesia. It is dated September 12, 1951. I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I quote from the remarks of two different speakers. The first is an extract from the speech of Mr. Siwale. He says:
"In the report it is stated that the conference in London comprised only prominent government officials who know the fears and hopes of the African people and who worked very hard to formulate the report. Here the African is puzzled and feels that much fear had to be recognised, the fear of the African that he might not et a fair deal and the fear of the European that they would be swamped and consequently also not get a fair deal. One may ask from what did these fears come. From the fact that genuine partnership is not the existing criterion and that there was no sign that the partnership would become the guiding factor. If that could be achieved, suspicion would disappear. When Africans opposed the proposals in 1948 they said the

785
time was inopportune for them to accept any proposals. Despite that, the European has persisted in bringing forward more proposals, such as federation. It can easily be seen in the report that in a federal parliament we find inadequate and poor representation on the Africans' part. We, all of us, remember that we demanded an increase of African representation in Legislative Council recently, and our request was denied by the Government of Northern Rhodesia. They say that we are not fit to sit in the Legislative Council, and we cannot express ourselves fully in English. We can speak in our own languages and an interpreter could stand there as they do in other countries."
The other extract I want to read is from the speech of Mr. Musumbulwa, who said:
"We are enjoying democratic government, but I believe that there are a number of dissatisfactions"—
I feel that that is quite moderate—
"because democracy is a government of the people, for the people, by the people. I think I am right in saying that two ideas are applied. One is of the people, government of the people and the government for the people. The later idea, which I feel is most important, government by the people, I think is less practised. As far as administration is concerned, no African has yet been appointed to an official position. That shows that the Government is not allowing we Africans to participate in the direct administration of the Government.
"The second thing is that in the Legislature of this Protectorate, we have two Africans representing our interests, two nominated Members representing African interests. We are, I think, something like two million Africans in the country and then we find that our brothers or our partners, who are less in number, have more representation in central politics. I believe it is very important that if as Africans we had an increased representation in the Legislative Council we will be sure that we have a government run by us. We shall have satisfaction in that we are quite secure, we are safe because we have more people talking for us.
"Referring to page 12, paragraph 32 of the report, where it says, Urgency of the problem ', I feel our urgent need is the executive, administrative powers and increased representation in central politics. That, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the House, is more urgent than the federal scheme, and I think it may make it possible at some time for Africans to consider some form of closer association."
The point he is making is that of a true partnership before federation. He goes on—and I think the next sentence is a very good one:
"The position is, we are going with smaller power in our smaller government to a much smaller power in a wider government and it is very true that a good deal of what we want will not be done and cannot be done in that way."
786
I apologise for detaining your Lordships, but I have one or two other points that I wish to make. I think we may conclude from such remarks that the Africans are not ignorant, and in the last few years (and this is the point) the pace of their political education has been rapidly increasing, which alters the whole position. Nor are they unaware of world affairs. It is not true that they are just rejecting this without alternative suggestions, and I want briefly to suggest what are positive alternative proposals on definite terms. When a thing is evil, it is easy to destroy it, but it is much harder to equate an alternative suggestion. There is one other thing I should like to state to your Lordships, and that concerns the unofficial delegates from Northern Rhodesia who were in London at the time of the Conference. I am informed that these people were not allowed to report back to their own Protectorate Council.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite clear whom the noble Lord has in mind. Does he mean the white delegates or the African delegates?
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: The African delegates.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To report back what? They did not come to the Conference.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: To report back what their thoughts were as a result of being in London.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid that I cannot answer that point without notice. I did not know the point was to be raised. If I can get hold of a reply, I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. As Sir Godfrey Huggins is one of the prime movers in these federation proposals, may I quote one or two remarks of his? He said:
"You cannot have a policy for individual human beings. You might think you had one but if there was much in it you could never carry it out in the constant change of human relationships. I think that what most people mean in these communities of Europeans and Africans is that there can be a policy in regard to the use of the land by natives. When the question of employment in industry arises it is not so much native policy as European policy."
Sir Godfrey Huggins also said:
"After a long period of years our descendants will know what are the capabilities of

787
the different races. The more capable will rule the roost."
The very tone of the speech does not seem to be encouraging partnership.
"At present we know where the ability rests but do not know how many uncommon people capable of sustained energy with creative and organising ability can be produced by the so-called native section after they have had some years of opportunity. When the Europeans came here the Bantu had no written language, and in view of the history of the world—that we are all descended from a common ancestry—it suggests that there is prima facie evidence that there is something wrong with the Bantu branch of the family."
May I say one thing about illiteracy? I expect many noble Lords know fine people who are wildfowlers on the East Coast, or in any other part of the country, who cannot write well but whom we regard as some of the most experienced people we have known. Just because they cannot write, we surely would not wish to deny such people a true part in democracy. I think the same applies in the case of any other country in the world.
May I give, very briefly, one or two positive suggestions for what we might call positive partnership'? Could it not come about, for instance—it would tremendously ease the tension—that there should be no racial restrictions on Africans acquiring land either in town or country? Also, why not some declaration about equal pay for equal work? That would involve re-definition of the word "employee" in the Industrial Conciliation Act of Southern Rhodesia. Why not the abolition of the legal colour bar and, as much as possible, the elimination of the ingrained colour bar in hotels, trains and so forth? Would it not be possible to cease having nominated members? This would be at once democratic and a lesson in democracy to the Africans in their own District, Provincial and Protectorate Councils. Equally in the Central Government African membership should be elected. There is the possible intermediate suggestion of parity, so that, in the case of the Nyasaland Legislative Council, there would be nine official members, five Europeans, five Africans and five Indian and coloured. That might eventually lead to a common interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, said, this is part of the same issue as the
788
slavery campaigns of 120 years ago or the abolition of slavery in the Empire 118 years ago. Obviously, we have divided loyalties in this country between the Europeans and the Africans, but surely our trust is especially towards the Africans, whose country it has been for far longer. I would not deny the tremendous amount of work put in by Europeans, and I appreciate that there must be some compromise solution. I feel that part of that compromise must be the eventual abolition of the colour bar. Could we not manage to be realistic and visionary all at the same time, and realise that paper safeguards are a debased currency? It is a question of reactions in the next few seconds between Africans and Europeans in the territories concerned. I therefore find myself having to oppose the proposals for federation, as at present put forward and at this present time.
6.8 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I think many of us welcomed the opportunity of reading again the debates of last Wednesday, not because we should find in them an opportunity which some noble Lords have found of rebuking members on opposite Benches, but for a somewhat simpler reason. It does enable those of us who have tried to be students of African affairs to arrive at some sort of clarification of the position of the Government, as expressed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. Our trouble originally was that the White Paper put forward this scheme as a series of proposals which, if approved, could be translated into a constitutional instrument—could be; that was very noncommittal. We now have it from the noble Marquess that the Government consider this to be a sensible and a workable scheme. In other words, I hope I am not assuming too much when I assume that the Government are behind the scheme of federation.
I am not going to ask, and it would not be fair to ask, and I know the noble Marquess could not be expected to answer the question, whether they feel so strongly in favour of federation that they would impose the scheme on the parts of Africa concerned, in spite of any opinion expressed against it. I think I am right in assuming that at present the Government stand behind, in principle,

789
the scheme of federation, subject to any alterations which may be made in the course of the visit of the three Commissions which are now on their way out there. I may remark that the changes that some of these Commissions are likely to make will probably be somewhat far-reaching. The Fiscal Commission, for instance, will have the making of recommendations which will somehow be woven into the Constitution, in order to provide for an extra sum which I, on my own estimate, place at about £10,000,000 a year and which must be raised by fresh taxation. Also there will be, I should imagine, some rather complicated adjustments in a scheme which will bring together three units, of which one—Southern Rhodesia—has a loan debt of between £85,000,000 and £90,000,000, and the other two have comparatively small public debts of about £4,000,000 or possibly £3,000,000. The Law Commission will also have some difficult problems to adjust in view of the different systems of law established in Southern Rhodesia as compared with the two Colonies concerned.
But if I am right in assuming that, subject to structural changes of that kind which will have to be made as the result of the visit of the Commissions, the Government intend to uphold the scheme of federation, I am going to ask one initial question. It is, I am sure, one which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, had he been here—and I deplore his absence, because he has been connected intimately with this question for many years—would certainly have asked more than once in this House. That question is: Why do you not begin by amalgamating, or it may be federating, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland? If you were to take a step of that kind you would not have any longer to meet the more theoretical objections that were brought against such amalgamations or federations in previous years, because they would have been removed, obviously, by the decision of the Government on the subject of federation. But you would have this advantage, and a very considerable advantage it is: that you would enable the people of Africa mostly concerned to have some little experience of a union of that kind in its actual working. There would be the further advantage that you would enable the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia themselves to see the very particular
790
benefit they might derive if they could so adjust the terms of federation as to secure the good will of Africans in its operation.
I am aware that that would mean some period of delay, and we have heard on every hand that delay in this matter would be exceedingly dangerous. We have been told again and again that if we do not get federation now we shall never do so. I am not quite sure of the grounds on which that statement is made. I have questioned many of my friends and have not received a very precise answer. I think, if I may be frank, that it is connected in their minds with the possibility that Sir Godfrey Huggins, who was one of the chief advocates of the scheme, would be retiring from politics, and that without his advocacy there would be an end to the prospects of federation. I hope I shall not be guilty of any impropriety in speaking of the Prime Minister of another responsible Government if I say that it would be a tragedy if Sir Godfrey Huggins had to give up his part in politics. I think it would be regarded as such not only in Southern Rhodesia, among all Parties there and among all races, but also in the Commonwealth at large. But I hope there is enough strength for the case of federation, and that there are arguments for it which do not depend upon the continuance of the advocacy of Sir Godfrey Huggins, and if it is a viable proposition (if I may use a word which I do not quite understand) I hope it will stand on its own merits.
Your Lordships have heard a great deal on the subject of principle this afternoon. I propose to be more commonplace, passing at once to some questions of detail. The central point, the focal point, of the scheme is really the African Affairs Board. I think we should all regret that it has been found necessary to provide a measure of this kind in order to remove the apprehensions of Africans. Let me say at once that I consider that the advocacy of the existence of a board like this does not imply any condemnation of the attitude of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia or Northern Rhodesia—either the settled community in Southern Rhodesia or the more or less transitory industrial European community in Northern Rhodesia. But it is perfectly clear that Africans have these apprehensions. I am told on many hands that we must

791
not make—and I am going to quote an expression which has been used here this afternoon—too much of African opinion because there is no such thing as African opinion but only a certain number of vocal Africans who lead others along the path they have chosen for them. Well, I used to hear a great deal of that kind of argument when I first went to India—I regret to say nearly sixty years ago—and for many years those arguments were directed against any scheme for reform or change in India. But gradually we came to learn for ourselves the truth that what we had to deal with was just that vocal opinion that was voiced by a number of advanced and, if you like, aggressive people because they assumed leadership of the country for the mass of the people. It was a leadership which we ourselves could not assume. Sooner or later we have to reckon with that class of opinion, and it would be exceedingly unsafe to neglect it now.
Therefore, when I speak of African opinion I am careful to be precise on the subject. I will say that it is the opinion of the progressive and vocal Africans that we encounter in these territories and who are gradually assuming the leadership of the mass of Africans. It is indisputable that they have these apprehensions; and if the interests of the white population have to be safeguarded in a federation of this kind, it is only reasonable to suppose that the interests of the African people must be safeguarded by a device of some kind such as the African Board. But in itself this is only really a compromise. The natural, ordinary, constitutional provision for a people—it may be a minority or it may be an inferior party—is to provide for a structure of federation or of government with a sufficient number of votes to make its opinions felt. In India it was once proposed—and I believe it has been proposed elsewhere—as an additional protection, that if a minority community having a certain number of representatives were unanimous against any proposal, that proposition would be held up in the Legislature. But that kind of device or that grant of a sufficient number of votes is apparently impossible in present circumstances. It would not be accepted by the European community. I think it would be unreasonable to ask that there should be anything of that nature introduced into the Federal Con-
792
stitution at this stage; the time is not yet ripe for it. But I think we must realise that, if there are to be safeguards for one community or another, then ultimately that will be the natural constitutional development. It is for that reason that I suggest that this scheme should be put forward at present distinctly on that understanding: that this is an expedient that has to be adopted until further Constitutional changes can take place which will give the African a more influential voice in the Legislature.
I say it is a compromise. From the African point of view, I am well aware that it is not a very desirable compromise, and for this reason—which has not been referred to here but I believe it to be the real reason: the Africans are afraid that the Home Government would find it very difficult to disallow any measure which had so strong a local European support that its disallowance might cause the fall of a local Ministry. If it were a matter on which European opinion was so strong that a Ministry would fall on the subject of a disallowance, then equally I think it would be impossible to provide an alternative Ministry to take its place. That is the reason, I think, why Africans are apt to say that this is the real weakness of this particular feature of the scheme. It is for that reason also that I repeat my suggestion that the African Board should be put forward distinctly as an expedient to tide over the time until African voting strength is sufficient to exercise its influence on matters to which African opinion objects.
There is in the scheme as it is drafted a further weakness that I can see and which I am sure Africans feel also. The matters of real importance to Africans are likely to arise much more in the executive and the administrative field than they do in the legislative field. That was certainly our experience in India when it came to questions of protecting the rights of minorities. We had to take there exceptional steps to see that the minorities particularly were protected in the executive and administrative field and not merely in the field of legislation. The fact is, of course, that you can exercise discrimination against a minority or another party as much by negative action as you can by positive action. Your budget and the provisions you make for social services and the like are often

793
much more powerful a weapon that any legislation which you can enact. I am well aware that the African Affairs Board can make certain representations on this particular subject, but it is difficult to see how all that elaborate procedure of reference to the Home Government and disallowance of legislation will have the same effect for the protection of African interests—and here is the point—as would be exercised by continual Colonial Office control over the proceedings of the Administration.
Of course, I am perfectly well aware—and the Government can quite reasonably make the point—that the definition of the respective fields of the Federal and Territorial Governments has narrowed the sphere in which the Federation can exercise executive as well as legislative action. But while I recognise that there are many African interests of the greatest importance that are protected by this definition of functions, while I recognise, for instance, that such questions as those relating to the land or the control of native courts—all highly important questions to the African—fall outside the federal sphere and are subject to territorial legislation, yet there are other subjects which affect Africans and which fall within the sphere of federal legislation: for instance, customs regulations which, at all events, if one listens to what has been said on the subject, have been used against Africans before now in other Colonies, the management of railways and the higher education of Africans. Those are all subjects entirely for exclusive federal control, and the Federation will have concurrent control in a number of matters which are also of considerable importance to Africans, such as marketing boards, prisons, and health, in the sense of public health regulations. If I read the White Paper proposals correctly, if there is a conflict of authority between the Federal and the Territorial Governments, then it is the decision of the Federal Government that will prevail, not only in legislative action but in administrative and executive action. You have, therefore, in that case also, distinctly a second weakness, of which your Lordships must be aware, in the proposals regarding the African Affairs Board.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord was referring to subjects on the concurrent list, I assume.
LORD HAILEY: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not the large number of subjects which still fall under the Territorial Governments. With those, of course, the Federal Government will have nothing whatever to do. They cover the largest subjects affecting the life of the African.
LORD HAILEY: Certainly. As I said—I do not know whether I made myself sufficiently clear in what I was saying—I realise that there are a number of very important subjects, such as the control of native courts, land, and so on, which remain purely territorial.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD HAILEY: And they are outside the federal sphere. I said that there are other subjects which fall into the federal sphere, such as marketing boards and the like. I have my list here—customs regulations, management of railways, and the higher education of the Africans. Those fall into the exclusive control of the Federal Government. Then there are concurrent subjects in which, of course, the Federal and the Territorial Governments both have a sphere of action but, in the case of conflict, it is the decision of the Federal Government which prevails. Rightly or wrongly, I referred to that as being a weakness in the present scheme, but I am not going to pursue this examination of subjects in detail because perhaps we may have some subsequent opportunity of discussing what I should call the Committee points. I do not want to enter into them now. I would confine myself only to remarking that I think that some new definition must be attempted in this rather vexed matter of differentiating measures. The real point is that you can have a measure of differentiation which is concealed—that is to say, you can have legislation which applies to all communities alike but affects only one. We have had so many cases of that in India. I will not weary the House by reciting them, but it is clear that certain types of legislation, while apparently applying to all communities and therefore not falling within the scope of differentiation, nevertheless affect one community almost entirely. Therefore, I ask only that clue care should be given towards finding some more practical definition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, who

795
speaks with such authority on this matter, but the White Paper says on page 24:
"differentiating measure' means a Bill or a subordinate law by which Africans are subjected or made liable to any conditions, restrictions or disabilities disadvantageous to them to which Europeans are not also subjected or made liable, or which might in its practical application have a like effect."
I think that should answer the point which the noble Lord has made, because it is impossible to go much wider than that.
LORD HAILEY: If I may say so, I considered that passage very carefully, and I realised that while the question of differentiation is a matter almost of legal interpretation, the question whether something is "disadvantageous" to Africans is very much a matter of opinion; and on certain occasions the Governor-General can refuse to refer legislation if he does not regard it as being to the disadvantage of Africans.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a point. I think that is a matter which might easily be considered further. It was meant to deal with frivolous matters, but if it makes the safeguard stronger it is a point that can be considered again. But I cannot agree with the noble Lord in regard to the scope of a differentiating measure as laid down here. The definition is as wide as it possibly can be.
LORD HAILEY: The noble Marquess will realise that I am only trying to point out matters which might perhaps be considered before the scheme is finalised. You will find a similar difficulty in the definition of "public officer," which has received various legal interpretations. But I will not labour that either. From those remarks on points of detail your Lordships will gather that there are certain matters which I think will have to be considered again by the Government, quite apart from the matters which may be referred to them by the Commissions.
I will return again to what I put aside for the moment—namely, this question of principle, and to the necessity of safeguarding the position of Africans in any scheme of federation. I find that Europeans, at all events in Southern Rhodesia, show a certain amount of indignation at the idea that anyone over
796
here should think it necessary to call attention to African interests in the matter, or to propose safeguards for them. Personally, I am one of those who do not wish in the slightest to overlook the enormous debt that the people of Central Africa owe to European enterprise, management and example. The results of that are entirely to the benefit of Africans. Neither do I want to overlook the fact that in Southern Rhodesia the Administration has shown a great deal of consideration and liberality towards native interests. I have examined the position with some care at different times, and I say that quite conscientiously, while at the same time I rather protest against the attempts that have been made to press, somewhat unduly in my view, the comparison between the amounts spent by Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia on social services. A fact that is overlooked is that Northern Rhodesia has only just been able to achieve the resources by which it can spend money on native welfare.
But one cannot judge of the attitude of a Government merely by statistical calculations of this kind: a large number of matters must be taken into account, and cannot be calculated merely by statistical comparisons. Indeed, if figures of this kind are to be a test, then on that basis the native policy of the Union of South Africa is far superior to that of Southern Rhodesia or Northern Rhodesia, or of most of our Colonies. If you take the bare figures as they were given, until recently the Union spent on the education of each of its African subjects £4 2s. 4d. a head, as against £2 7s. Od. in Southern Rhodesia and £3 16s. Od. in Northern Rhodesia. I put absolutely no weight on that at all. I merely say that I hope we shall hear very little more of these statistical comparisons.
If it is suggested that some safeguards are necessary to meet the apprehensions of the African, it is not because we have a mistrust of Europeans—be they the British in Southern Rhodesia or the Afrikaan-speaking population in Northern Rhodesia. We are perfectly willing to believe that the best of them, at all events, honestly approach this question in a spirit of partnership. But we are making this plea simply and solely because we believe that the federation would have a far better chance of success

797
if it carried the good will of Africans and if some of these apprehensions were removed. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton has referred to two of the advisory bodies—the African Representative Council of Northern Rhodesia, and the African Protectorate Council in Nyasaland. If any of your Lordships would care to read the debates of those two bodies, some of which I have been through over a period of years, you will see that there is a body of responsible, respectable and intelligent opinion—by no means of the agitator type, but highly moderate in its form of expression. Indeed, a large number of the members of these bodies are chiefs or men belonging mainly to families who could not be regarded as anything but responsible in their own sphere of work. It is because we wish to carry with us that class of opinion that we ask for these safeguards and for this consideration.
May I just add one further word? In the study which I have attempted to make of African affairs during the last sixteen years, I have been convinced, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was convinced, of the value of these federations or closer unions of various scattered parts of our Colonial Dominions. I believe that that is essential on general grounds, and not merely on account of the economic benefits which may be looked forward to as a result. In many ways the scheme that we have before us now is, I think, a great improvement on that which was brought forward from the original official conference. I can see minor points in regard to which it might be better, but now that the Government stand behind the scheme and the position is clearer, I hope that it can be put in its revised form before the three Legislatures concerned, and put as fairly as possible to African opinion. I myself should dislike to think that we were imposing it on Africans against their firm refusal to accept. I would plead only that it should be put now to the three Legislatures and to African opinion, and that we should get, if possible, as fair a view as we can and consider again in this country the impact of African opinion upon it. I am convinced that what we want to achieve in federation is not—as some noble Lord has suggested here to-day—merely the achievement of self-rule by Africans. We want to achieve, as a result of federation,
798
a definite process of self-rule by all the communities combined. I believe that it is only by federation that we shall get that balance of forces—the racial forces, the cultural forces, and the economic forces—which will make self-rule possible.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT PORTMAN: My Lords, it is not my intention to keep you very long. We have heard, both last Wednesday and this afternoon, the expression of a very considerable body of opinion on this matter of federation of the three Central States in Africa. I myself feel that the plan, from an economic, political and financial point of view, is certainly essential, and that the way it has been put in the Government White Paper shows that a very great amount of serious thought and consideration has been given to all aspects of white and native affairs. I think that the speeches made this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, have clearly shown why this project is a necessity.
I turn to the question of African agreement. I want to make my remarks as short as possible, so I will come straight to what I consider the vital points. I wish to stress one matter of which I have not heard very much—once only I believe has it been mentioned—and that is the effect of the impact of outside propaganda on African opinion in this matter. I do not know whether your Lordships realise it, but since the end of the war a stream of unequivocable and treasonable propaganda against this country has been coming from the borders of Abyssinia. It has been spread not only in West Africa and East Africa but also in South Africa—I am now speaking of the activities of the Soviet Ministry in Addis Ababa. I say that without fear of contradiction. I ask your Lordships, with that sort of thing going on for something like four years, how can you feel that it is possible to get a fair consensus of African opinion on a matter like this, which so vitally concern; the Africans themselves? I say that you cannot.
I feel very strongly about this. I am perfectly certain that a very great deal of this continued negativeness on the part of Northern Rhodesians, Africans chiefly, has been the result of this propaganda. It has come sometimes by circuitous ways, sometimes direct from

799
Africa and sometimes through the City of London, from our universities and through certain societies. I have no hesitation in saying so. I think that African opinion would not have been so—shall we say?—stilted if this propaganda had been absent. Therefore I feel that we must make adjustment in our adjudication of events to allow for this. And possibly the Government, when making a final presentation of the case to the Africans next October, will have been able to find some means to allay their fears, and also to stifle some of this propaganda. I myself do not think that we have a great deal to be apprehensive about in connection with native fears. I have tried to follow, though not quite so skilfully as the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, the methods and duties of the African Affairs Board. I think that African affairs are receiving every consideration. Naturally, we may consider further political reforms are necessary for the Africans—as, of course, they are. But I think that these reforms can probably come better through the area of this proposed federation, which will strengthen the hands of everyone and will be of a more permanent nature. I am convinced that at present the governmental systems of these three isolated territories are not strong enough really to put over the reforms directed to secure African participation which a closer union of these territories should bring about.
6.48 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think nearly every speaker to-day and last Wednesday has paid tribute to the Colonial officer—and I believe quite rightly. I believe that the great work which the Colonial service has done has been more properly recognised in recent years than it was before. Noble Lords who have spoken have in some cases wide knowledge of Africa. Some have lived there; some have visited it frequently. I think I am the only person speaking in the debate who was once a District Officer on the eastern side of Africa. I give my own opinion for what it is worth, but I think the late Government was extremely wise in having the original proposals drawn up by a Committee composed largely of Colonial servants. Whereas Governors and others come and go, the Service goes on for ever. I think
800
they produced an extremely workmanlike document which we debated on August 1 of last year. Speaking as one who was once a District Officer in East Africa, I would say that nothing could surprise me less than that the initial reaction of the Africans was a complete refusal. One can only too easily generalise about Africans, and I will not fall into that trap if I can help it. Whereas a Sicilian and a Swede are mightily different, it would be perceptible, to an outside observer from another continent, that they had some European similarity and were joined together by certain distinguishable threads. It is little different with Africans, and I do not think one is generalising about East and Central Africa when one says that an African will always initially resist any change in the status quo.
Now I speak for my own district—which, of course, is a mere microcosm compared to the whole continent. Every single novel scheme, whether for the education of the children, the vaccination of cattle, dealing with the tsetse fly or soil conservation—each scheme to meet the problem always met with initial resistance. Very often we took the step against their united antagonism, and then the African came round when he saw that the step we had taken really worked. But in the District Officer's job long hours, weeks, even years of patient explanation are called for. I think it has been ever thus—for I have heard it said, on the best authority, that Africans bitterly resented political authority being transferred from the Chartered Company to the British Government. Interference with the status quo is something they will always distrust.
The next point in dealing with a district—because though coming within the ambit of my own experience it does not belong to a distant past, for your Lordships if you look at me will perceive that I am not a very old man—
LORD PAKENHAM: Hear, hear!
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Let not the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, think that the task of the District Officer is as easy as all that, in explaining the difference between federation and amalgamation to the Bantu people. There are no words to differentiate these two things and it can

801
be explained only by immense patience and care, and a whole volume of words. I know from experience how many difficulties one can fall into if one has not the correct African word to describe what is meant. In Uganda there was a sect who vigorously opposed, frequently with force, often with bloodshed and sometimes death, anything designed to promote health. The reason was based on one simple and silly fact. When the Bible was translated into their language, the word for physician was the same as that for witch doctor. Fifty years of patient explanation was unsuccessful in eradicating that sect or putting the conception right.
One thing has made the African particularly suspicious of this scheme. Contrary to precedent, it was launched without any lead being given, and I think that he seemed to see a "catch" in that. Introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that it would give us a chance of making up our minds. We have had a magnificent debate, but it is much harder for the Africans, the British electorate and the world at large, to make up their minds in this subject, as the air has been over-clouded with suspicion. When the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, produced his Report, it was said that there were those who were for it, those who were against it and those who had read it. The same might well be said of these proposals. Before the proposals were launched last year, even before the late Government had time to produce the original plan, a pamphlet, written by a well-known pamphleteer opposing federation, was widely circulated in Central Africa and in Britain.
There has also been a section of the Press purporting to express African opinion, which has acted as export houses of prefabricated arguments against federation, which are re-exported to this country as genuine African opinion. There is that strange school of thought, which would well repay a cool scientific analysis and which deems that if a farmer or a miner both considered admirable men in this country, lands in Africa, although the dust may not be off his hoots, he becomes a rapacious, grasping man, impatient, greedy, and oppressive. Then there are those who will not see that there are any other people of Africa than indigenous Africans. There are also those who equate public opinion in Africa with public
802
opinion in Britain, disregarding the fact that the people in Britain have had many centuries in which to build up an acumen in public affairs. Because our people in Britain are newspaper readers, and have access to radio, public opinion in this country is one of the liveliest in the world. In my short political career nothing, has struck me more about public opinion than the instantaneous reaction which washed against the Palace of Westminster on the question of the death penalty, and those with far longer political experience might well have thought it the most striking example of their career.
LORD PAKENHAM: Before the noble Lord leaves the critics of federation, would he say a word about the missionaries? Does he join the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in thinking that they ought to keep their hands out of this business?
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: No, all the missionaries are not on one side. Personally I attach a good deal of importance to the opinions expressed by the Bishop of Salisbury in favour of federation. but the missionaries do not form one homogeneous group.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord, with his great knowledge of Africa, is not telling us seriously that on the whole the missionaries are on his side?
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: No, I think they are more on the noble Lord's side. There is one thing we must be clear about. Most of the false analogies in the world arise from the fact that people approach a subject in terms of who is better and who is worse. There is not the slightest question of who is better, the Briton or the African. What is needed is a clear-cut recognition that both are very different. Do not think I lack sympathy for the Africans. Some of the best days of my life were spent in Africa, in the company of Africans, and I owe my life to an African who went almost to certain death to save me. But we do no service to the African if we somehow pretend that he is much cleverer than the Briton, and assume that he has learned in fifty years what it took us nearly twice live hundred years to. learn.
I very much regret the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I do not want to raise the matter again, because two other speakers have clone so. The

803
noble Lord explained that if one reads his speech carefully one will find the sting of his remarks on "exploitation" is nullified and mitigated in other parts of the speech, but that particular part, taken by itself, I think he would probably be the first to regret. I am prepared to accept that it was unintentional. But if we vilify the white settler, it is impossible to retain respect for the white man. Many of the hard things we have said about Southern Rhodesia are quite unsound. The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, had something to say in reply. I think that in the twenty-nine years of their existence as a self-governing, country the achievements of Southern Rhodesia are massive. At this moment the white Rhodesians are fighting in Malaya. Black Rhodesians are standing guard on the Suez Canal. It has had an extraordinary history of effective and, in its own way, liberal government. There is great force in what the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said about the 100,000 labourers who come down every year and, when the season's work is over, return to their homes, taking their pay, to return again in the year following. That seems a strange thing to do if they find the native policy of Southern Rhodesia so repressive. If in our debates we give the white Rhodesians the feeling that we do not trust them, I believe we shall have made a profoundly unfortunate impression. It would not he surprising then, as time passed, that they tended to turn their eyes south of the Limpopo.
The truth about all federations is that they are born of turmoil, and there is nothing in all the field of human argument where opinion swings through such an arc. American federation is an example in point. It is interesting to reflect that, when that federation was organised, the document was prepared by Alexander Hamilton, of Nevis, a British Colony. That is why the United States have what, in effect, is a British Crown Colony Government and not responsible government. Take Canada, where racial hatreds were much fiercer. Last week we celebrated the 85th anniversary of the birthday of the Canadian Federation in 1867. In 1868, Nova Scotia wished to leave the Federation. They held an election, in which only one person who wanted to stay in the Federation was returned: but,
804
four years later, when they had another election, so far had opinion swung in favour that only one person who wanted to get out of the Federation was elected. Much play is made with the great and real difference between Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia, but your Lordships will recollect that their difference is less substantial than that between Ontario and Quebec and between Vermont and Texas. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, in his interesting speech, produced certain arguments for bringing into line native policy. As I see it, there is an argument for amalgamation and not for federation, which is something which I personally do not favour. But the great thing about federation is that it does not demand uniformity between the units federated.
I have now said enough. The federation issue is always a difficult one. Africa is a Continent sui generic. Add federation to the atmosphere of Africans, and you have a formidable problem on your hands. I do not think anyone who has spoken to-day, or last week, is 100 per cent. against federation in any form. A large number of noble Lords are in favour of federation now, or rather after the next Conference, in this form. There are some who take a middle course, who would prefer to see a somewhat different scheme probably adding to the African safeguards. A tremendous amount of thought has been put by the Government into these African safeguards. I cannot see that any safeguard which the African enjoys at the present moment will be weakened by transferring to this particular form of safeguard which the Government have devised, and which I feel is at least as strong.
I think we shall all continue to regret that the representatives of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland did not find it possible to attend the Conference, because their advice would have been most helpful, and the purely negative attitude that they have shown gets one nowhere. I think probably the majority opinion of those who oppose federation is something like this: "We think it will come; we wish it to come; but let it come in the long run in a more suitable atmosphere." The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, said that he could not see the urgency. I do not believe that there will be any "long run," in the sense that the conditions of to-day will remain the

805
same. I hope that I may be unduly pessimistic, but there are trends at work which are not prepared to stand still. I believe that if we do not pass this federation within a reasonable time we shall perhaps never pass it. It is either now, or not in our lifetime. I believe it only too likely that the stream of capital for Southern Rhodesia and the other territories will dry up, as it is now tending to dry up, and that the great schemes envisaged in relation to the Zambesi, and the other projects of which we have heard, may well, if federation does not go through, remain blueprints gathering dust in a pigeonhole. It requires only a drastic fall in certain commodity prices for the progress of countries like Nyasaland to be brought from a swift stride down to a stumble, and then to a halt, because you cannot have welfare without economic development.
Further to that, extremists are appearing on both sides. Extremists always beget extremists. This mist of controversy which we have at the moment may easily become the steam of bitterness, until we get to a fearful conflict of extremes, what Lord Durham described, in his famous Report on unfederated Canada as
"two nations warring in the bosom of a single state."
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to the vacuum of power. I believe that it is our destiny in Africa to do the leading and not just be led. I believe that the African, as he becomes educated—and more and more are—is beginning to ask, "Where are we going? What is our future?" I believe that this scheme of federation provides the material structure for that spiritual concept of a multiracial society, and opens up to the Africans and to the white men alike some goal to which they can march—instead of being isolated territories, buffeted hither and thither by boom and slump, and individually of little strength, becoming united as a great nation of the world. I do not accept for one moment any ideas of an African hegemony; nor do I accept the idea of a white hegemony. I believe that the scheme put forward may, with suitable amendments, be the only possibility of any real alternative—a Christian, British alternative—to the grim doctrine of racial supremacy.
7.4 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence for a moment? The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who has just sat down, in what I thought was a very fine speech, also referred to some remarks of mine. I feel that the time has come for me to apologise to the House for the interpretation which has been put on these words, which has at all times horrified me from the beginning. I had no intention of giving the impression which seems to have been taken up in various parts of the House. I should like to say, frankly, that where I referred to
"white settlers, who in the past have not scrupled"
to exploit, I should have said,"… those white settlers who have not scrupled" to exploit. For any misdirection, I beg your Lordships' pardon, and I feel most embarrassed that that interpretation should have been placed on my words. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to say that.
7.6 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as the first speaker after the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I am sure the House will wish me to say that his remarks are received in the spirit in which they were uttered. I must apologise for having been absent during the first day of this debate. I was laid low with lumbago, which, as some of your Lordships may know, is a somewhat depressing disease. But even in that condition I was able to appreciate the very high quality of the first day's debate when I read it; and to-day seems, in my humble and inexpert opinion, to have lived up to that same standard. Indeed, I cannot remember a debate so vital as the one which we have had to-day.
The advantage naturally seems to me to lie with those who have expressed anxieties about federation, but we appreciate the great knowledge of many who have taken the other view, arid certainly the depth of their feeling. If I may say so, without appearing patronising, sympathise with the Government in the situation in which they find themselves. They have been beaten about a good deal over the head, and they find themselves sharply criticised, not only from the Labour Benches—which perhaps they

807
are inclined to take for granted—but by the Liberals, by the representatives of the Church of England and the Free Churches, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who, if I may say so, in the presence of Lord Tweedsmuir, has probably had more direct experience of Africa than anyone who has addressed the House to-day.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): Central Africa?
LORD PAKENHAM: I said "Africa."
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Central Africa?
LORD PAKENHAM: I said "Africa."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is quite a point there. Would the noble Lord say that because a man has had experience of England he has also had experience of Rumania?
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that the noble Marquess has a great experience of England and is perfectly prepared to lay down the law on Ireland, which is no doubt his domain at the present time. I return to my expression of sympathy with the Government in the predicament in which they find themselves. I certainly am not going to try, on behalf of the Opposition, to force a "Yes" or "No" from the noble Earl, Lord Munster, when he replies.
The Government, following the example of their predecessors, have taken immense trouble over the present scheme. I am sure we all recognise the great efforts which have been made—and, if I may say so to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the efforts which he in particular has made—to safeguard African interests, so far as is humanly possible. At this late hour, and with so many experts having already delivered themselves on this subject, I am not going to attempt to criticise this particular scheme. If I were to do so, I should regret the disappearance of the Minister of African Affairs. It is possible to say—and it is true in a way—that it would have been constitutionally peculiar. But, of course, this whole scheme, this federation of unequals, is bound to be a constitutional freak, and I speak as one who has had more experience of studying constitutional issues than
808
some of the other issues. I do not think that particular feature would have been any more freakish than the rest is bound to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Hailey, spoke with great authority about the practical and technical aspects of the scheme, and I will not follow him, except to say that many of those difficulties he mentioned must be underlined. I do not want to argue this matter, partly because of the late hour and partly because I do not want to suggest to the noble Marquess and the noble Earl that, if they could slightly improve the scheme, it would secure the approval of African opinion at this stage. I do not want to mislead anybody to that effect. The present position (and this is where I express sympathy) is that the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are solidly opposed to the scheme. I am not disputing the economic advantages of the scheme. So far as we can judge them. I do not think they are sensational, and many of them will, in fact, be achieved in other ways. Let us, for the sake of argument, agree that there are economic advantages which could be realised under this scheme. Again, I am not going to dwell on the argument in favour of the scheme, that unless we agree to this scheme now or in the immediate future, Southern Rhodesia may throw in her lot with South Africa. I noticed that the noble Marquess did not make use of that argument, and I am glad that he did not. I find it exceedingly hard to believe that Southern Rhodesia would throw in her lot with the Union, in any circumstances. Certainly that would be inconceivable if her ruling people are of the calibre that the noble Marquess explained to us they were.
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, I think I ought to intervene. I did not use that exact argument, but what I did say, and what I believe to be absolutely true, is that if this scheme does not go through now there will be a tendency for those countries north of the Zambesi to look more to the north and for the countries south of the Zambesi to look more to the south. Therefore, the Zambesi, which should be the great link and source of power for territories on both banks, will become a boundary between them.
LORD PAKENHAM: I know the noble Marquess speaks with very great authority on Southern Rhodesia. He, at any rate, did not use, as an argument for immediate action, the ground that Southern Rhodesia might otherwise throw in her lot with South Africa. It seems to me that anybody who takes that view takes a poor view of Southern Rhodesia. I think most of us in this House feel nothing but detestation for the sort of Government under which the South Africans are living at the present time—when I say "South Africans," I mean the white, coloured and black South Africans. It defeats my comprehension how the good people of Southern Rhodesia could contemplate joining forces with an organisation run on those lines. That argument was not pressed by the noble Marquess, and I therefore pass over it rather quickly.
We come back to the point that the Africans from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are strongly opposed to this scheme. The London Committee of the United Central Africa Association—a body who have given a great deal of thought to these matters—talks of
"a few Africans from the two territories having come out against it."
That, obviously, is an understatement to the point of absurdity. The Africans, if we can judge them by any tests we care to apply, are in fact opposed to it—and very strongly opposed. To that there is more than one answer, and I am bound to say that none of the answers which have been put forward from the other Benches seem to pass muster for a moment. There is the answer given by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in its clearest form, with which I think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—who is in the House, while the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, is not—will agree. The argument was that there is no such thing as African opinion. There is something called vocal African opinion which can be disregarded completely as being the opinion only of a few. There is the other section of unvocal African opinion which can hardly be regarded as having an opinion at all. The short answer provided by Lord Hudson is that there is no such thing as African opinion. I think that is a fair implication of his words.
LORD MILVERTON: I think that is a very fair burlesque of what was said.
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Lord would care to improve on it now. I am in his hands.
LORD MILVERTON: I endeavoured to make it clear—and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, did, too—that it is impossible to talk of African opinion in the sense in which it had been used in this debate, because, to the bulk of Africans, opinion means acquiescence in what they are told by the people whom they temporarily follow as a leader; and the people who are influencing them at the moment are educated or semi-educated Africans who have their eyes fixed on another part of the Continent of Africa, and whose aim is African domination. It is not partnership or anything of the sort. That is what I was endeavouring to suggest: that the African opinion against federation is not so much African opinion in the larger sense, as African opinion carefully stimulated in favour of African domination.
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Lord has made himself plain to himself he has performed a service to himself which I should not be able to render. I am bound to say that I am no wiser as a result of his intervention. I return to what the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, was understood to say: that there is no such thing as African opinion, in the sense that there is no African opinion which can be seriously considered in this matter. Let us take the representatives of African opinion—official representatives actually invited here to join in discussion with the Secretary of State. I need not go into the question of whether they were wise or not to refuse to take part in those discussions, but when the Government invited them they must have regarded them as representatives of something, and not just as a few ambitious Africans concerned with stirring up their fellows. I cannot make sense of the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, except on the supposition that it was all "make-believe" to ask the Africans to come here at all. I want to be fair to the noble Marquess. He has not used this argument. It was an argument used by Lord Hudson, who I see has now rejoined us. I was saying that,

811
according to the noble Viscount, there appears to be no such thing as African opinion on any political matter.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: No, you must not misrepresent me to that extent.
LORD PAKENHAM: I put it at greater length.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: In order to distinguish two kinds of opinion, I said that there is one small but very vocal section and Another very large and far more important section from the human point of view which was not vocal but which should not be regarded as having committed itself on this point.
LORD PAKENHAM: That distinction is one I did draw for the benefit of the House in the noble Viscount's absence.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, you did not. You said that the large unvocal part had no opinion at all. That is what you said the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said there was a small vocal section and another large unvocal section which was to be taken to have no opinion at all. What Lord Hudson said was that there is one section vocal and the other unvocal, and, therefore, nobody knew what their opinions were. He did not say they had not got opinions.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, is on record, and we shall be able to see whether he said that or not. If he agrees that the African opinion ought to be taken seriously, I assume he must agree that there must be some way of finding out whether this non-vocal section is in favour of federation.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I said specifically that I was reasonably certain from my own experience—and you will see it in Hansard in the morning—that the district officers were instructed not only to explain but to expound the new scheme, and the result would be seen in a very few months.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is not what I understood at all. The noble Viscount used the expression at one moment that they would understand it if they were given a definite order. That is a different thing from having the thing expounded
812
to them. The noble Viscount earlier told us that there were the vocal African, who could be set aside, and the non-vocal African, who would come round to the scheme if he were given a definite order.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: I said that on the whole the ordinary native in Northern and in Southern Rhodesia preferred to receive a definite order, and I quoted some agricultural instances. I never suggested that they were to be ordered now to accept this scheme.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The noble Viscount was referring to this scheme and also to definite orders, and the things became connected in my mind. The view of the noble Viscount is that we have not yet been able to discover the true African opinion. If that is indeed his view, I hope—and I shall believe until he contradicts me—that when we have made further inquiries he will accept the view of African opinion that they are against the scheme, if that proves to be the case, or to be in favour, if that proves to be the case. The noble Viscount bows his head—
LORD MILVERTON: May I interrupt for a moment? Africans in bulk—the majority of Africans—are not in the habit of thinking. They are not thinkers, and to suggest that at any time you can refer a scheme of federation to them and get them to reply to you is like referring a question of intricate financial policy to the general population of this country. The general population do not know about these things—they are not accustomed to know. They, and the African, or the native in many other parts of the world whom I have encountered, think what is told to them by their chiefs or their leaders or other people who influence them and whom they respect.
LORD PAKENHAM: I get back to where I started. The noble Lords say that Africans do not think about matters of this kind, and therefore I must assume that the noble Lords consider that in relation to a scheme of this kind there can be no such thing as African opinion. I do not believe that that can possibly be misrepresenting the noble Lord. We on this side believe there is such a thing as African opinion in regard to the scheme and that it can be elicited, and

813
that the Government will be wise to consider African opinion. The noble Marquess in this House the other day did not challenge the fact that Africans were opposed to this scheme. He did not indulge in these metaphysical distinctions, and I think he was wise not to do so. I am not saying that ironically.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This difficulty of the African opinion is getting more and more obscure, but I certainly would agree with what has been said on this side: that is, that there is only a small portion of African opinion that is vocal. I think it was earlier in the debate that the noble Lord, in an interruption, talked about a "solid mass of African opinion." There is not that. I ask the noble Lord to remember that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has spent a large part of his life in dealing with these people, and also that the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, has had a long experience. They are not to be swept away by saying, "We in our Party"—most of whom have never been near the place—"would take a different view."
LORD PAKENHAM: I am not "sweeping away." I have given way about six times and would do so "unto seventy times seven." The noble Marquess appears to be committed to the view that there is no African opinion. I think it would be as well if the Government were to realise that there is an African opinion, and make it favourable if possible. I should have thought that that was the view of the noble Marquess. Deliberately to set out to try to secure African consent to this scheme would seem a very intelligent and sensible effort to woo African opinion. I think we have heard enough, here and elsewhere, from a number of experts—some of whom have spent longer in Africa than some noble Lords who are supporting the scheme—to lead us to reach the conclusion that the Africans are not altogether foolish in suspecting the dangers in this scheme. The Africans have said they consider that the relative influence of the Colonial Office will be diminished and that the relative influence of the settlers in Southern Rhodesia will be increased. Does anybody deny that that will be the result of this scheme? I hardly think that that will be disputed.
The educational standards of the Africans have been rather lowly rated this
814
afternoon by some noble Lords who supported the Government. But are they foolish in drawing a distinction between the attitude of the Colonial Office and that of the Southern Rhodesian settlers? I do not want to read many more quotations from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, but there is one which I must read. I think the House may enjoy it. In a speech on June 23, a matter of which I have given notice to the noble Earl, he said:
"The Socialist Government of the United Kingdom set about ruthlessly to destroy everything in the Island Kingdom that had made her great in the past. That"—
he went on—
"was merely a domestic affair of the United Kingdom until they installed a Fabian policy into the Colonial Office, and that shook to the core the complacency of the Europeans who had made their homes in Africa. The situation was made worse because the Government staff at the Colonial Office, who knew more in theory than in practice, proved a fertile soil for germinating the seed sown by their Red masters."
That is the view of the Colonial Office in the last few years held by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I think that the Africans are absolutely right in drawing a sharp distinction between the Colonial Office, so criticised by the Prime Minister, and the Southern Rhodesian settlers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord is hardly fair to Sir Godfrey Huggins. He should have continued the quotation.
LORD PAKENHAM: Sir Godfrey Huggins said in addition:
"We can, however, be of good cheer, because a generalisation such as I have just made is always unfair and not strictly true. There are in the Socialist Party men of practical common sense who are sustained by their bearing and knowledge and who do not live on theory alone. They face up to what is possible and what is not, and go for what is in the best interests of all under the prevailing conditions."
I do not know whether it was my noble friend Lord Hall, who was the first Colonial Secretary, or whether it was Mr. Creech Jones, or Mr. Griffiths, or Lord Listowel, or perhaps Lord Ogmore. It might have been a whole lot of "Red masters" at the Colonial Office who are criticised as knowing more in theory than in practice and being "fertile soil" for this absurd seed. There is a distinction between the Colonial Office and the point

815
of view of the Rhodesian settlers, and in the circumstances it is understandable that Africans should prefer that the voice of the Colonial Office should not be diminished in favour of the settlers. I can say that, I am sure, without being accused of denouncing the settlers individually. I would therefore ask the Government whether they do not agree that at the present time we cannot really expect to get the Africans very interested in federation. As the Economist says—and that is not a "Red" Paper; it is a long way to the Right of the Government in economic matters:
"The British Government's difficulty is that it seems unable to offer them any attraction other than vague promises of economic betterment, whereas they are still confronted with an economic colour bar"—
this is the Economist—
"maintained by some of the people who are most in favour of federation. In these circumstances,"
says the Economist,
"it is grossly misleading to say that African opposition is solely caused by agitators."
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, can argue that out with the Economist. He is a capable dialectician.
LORD MILVERTON: At no period did I use the word "agitator," nor did I imply it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I forget what this small group was supposed to consist of—very ambitious men, and they did not appear in a very favourable light.
LORD MILVERTON: I will use a word which I am sure the noble Lord will understand—the intelligentsia.
LORD PAKENHAM: I take that as an excellent joke, but the noble Lord himself, I should have thought, is probably an honorary Fellow of one of the Colleges, and a D.Litt. as well—certainly he is worthy of such honours. I am not looking up or down to him as one intellectual regarding a horny-handed son of toil—but that is in passing. There we are. That is the real position: that the Africans are expected to enter this scheme and to forfeit, as it seems to them, some of their protections under all the well-meant efforts of the noble Marquess and his colleagues.
816
The President of the Northern Rhodesia African Congress said in London:
"We have been asked: What is the alternative to federation? We have a mandate from our people not to compromise. Any form of alternative would consist of educational facilities to be fit for responsibility in government."
I do think that those last words need particular notice. He is not demanding immediate equality in government, but educational facilities for them to be fit for responsibility in government. These words are worth quoting; they are, I hope, practically the last words I shall quote:
"The only safeguard is the African himself when he is able to stand on his own feet and defend his own rights. Then when this question of federation comes about we shall say Let us sit around and consider it ', but until then we shall not consider it."
That, surely, confirms the view which was put forward with exceptional force by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and in a different way by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, in that remarkable speech—that to secure the confidence of the Africans, to secure their interest in the search for an adequate scheme of federation, we must tackle the colour bar in a way that they really understand. At the present time there is no prospect, as it seems to me, of the Africans agreeing to this scheme. That is my strong personal feeling. I may be proved wrong, but I talked to these Africans when they were in London, and I should be very surprised to find that they had changed. While that feeling remains, surely I carry many with me, and certainly I am summing up the thoughts of many speakers when I say with passionate conviction that nothing but evil for Africans and Europeans alike could follow the attempt to coerce them into federation against their will. I am not saying that that is the intention of the Government, but the noble Marquess has refused to give an answer to that point. I maintain that nothing but evil could follow from an effort of that kind.
Noble Lords from these Benches and from other quarters of the House representing various political Parties and Churches have already spoken very strongly on this subject. They have pointed out, as it seems to me with incontrovertible logic, the flagrant inconsistency between such a course and any idea that our rule in Africa is based on consent of the governed. The noble

817
Lord, Lord Rea, has been under heavy fire, but he made a strong point, on which he deserves congratulation, in his earlier speech when he said that a serious breach of trust would be involved if we handed over these Protectorates who are entitled under treaty to look to us for protection. This is a point which has not been made. Surely it should not be swept aside. I call the attention of the noble Earl who is to reply to consider that very carefully. Those arguments, which are strong and which I hope are prevailing in Government quarters, for refusing to hand over Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland to South Africa would be seriously undermined if we went against the wishes of the vast majority of the peoples.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to go into this question of the people and whether we should or should not come to a decision in opposition to the people. I have explained my position about that to noble Lords this afternoon, but I hope that the noble Lord will not draw an exact analogy between handing over the territories to the Government of the Union and creating a Federation with most powerful safeguards, leaving the whole of the Northern territorial government in any case under the Colonial Office. There is no change at all.
LORD PAKENHAM: I could not agree that no analogy could be drawn, but I agree with the noble Marquess that there would be important differences—I say that quite definitely. In my opinion it would lead to a very dangerous line of argument indeed. I throw that in as an additional argument.
In conclusion, I say that the idea of partnership which has been proclaimed so eloquently by more than one speaker would be mortally stricken if we embarked on a course of this kind. Partnership, in the full sense, must clearly mean a partnership of equals, and I think we all agree, whether or not we are accused of being too pro-African, that in the meanwhile the main burden of leadership must fall on the white minority. But even in the interim period, which may last some time, partnership can surely exist in a sense used by Sir Godfrey Huggins when he called for
"a sincere acceptance of the fact that black and white are indispensable to each other, and
818
that each by his conduct and, actions earn the confidence and good will of the other."
In the interval, that seems to me a worthy conception of partnership. But there can be no confidence or good will when the stronger party passes beyond leadership and does something; amounting to, tyranny. I say that it would be a tyrannical act, contrary to everything we have done in recent years in our Colonial Empire and in the Commonwealth; it would be a caricature of our British way of life, if we imposed this scheme against the solid will of the Africans.
The Government, I am glad to notice, have not said, and have avoided saying, that they will take so calamitous a step. I implore them to say to-night that they have no intention of doing so, and if, in his reply, the noble Earl rebukes me for imputing so sinister a purpose, then I shall bow my head in apology and at the same time lift up my heart with a great joy. The situation is admittedly difficult. I suppose nobody believes that it needs only a little cleverness or a little bonhomie to put the whole thing right. It is difficult. Some who have worked so hard, not necessarily in the Government, for immediate federation might find it depressing. But I venture to suggest that there is no need for depression. When some of us, including noble Lords opposite, talked to the Africans visiting this country recently, we were not impressed with a purely negative outlook on their part, though we fully understood their reasons for opposition. We were impressed with what seemed to many of us their constructive outlook. The Africans appreciated that it would need white people in this country and abroad to give positive effect to their constructive longings. Above all, we were all impressed, I think, with the fact that they were not anti-British. I quote the President of the Northern Rhodesia African Congress again:
"We are not anti-British. If we were, we would not be talking to the British people."
There is something deeply moving about the way these Africans cling to their trust in us and to our concern for their welfare. I, and all of us who have been expressing anxiety, with no reference to Party considerations at all, implore the Government with all our hearts to make quite certain that this trust is not reposed in vain.
7.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the debate which has occupied the attention of the House for two days has, I think, been characteristic of all those which take place from time to time on Colonial affairs in your Lordships' House, for nearly every noble Lord who has contributed to this discussion has spoken from either practical or personal knowledge of the economic, social and political problems of Central Africa. On this second day and in winding up for the Government, I think the House would not wish that I should travel over the ground which was so ably covered last Wednesday by the Leader of the House. I think my best course would be to try to remove some of the misconceptions which have found expression in various speeches to which we have listened, and at the same time to endeavour to reply to some of the questions which have been asked.
However, before doing that I want to recall to the House and refer in some detail to some recent events which I think have very considerable bearing on all that we have been discussing. I need not take your Lordships back beyond November, 1950, when the then Secretary of State for the Colonies announced that the Government had reached a decision that there should be a fresh examination of the problem of closer association between the three territories of Central Africa. The House will remember that a conference was held in London in the New Year, and the officials' Report which was published in June came to unanimous decisions. When that Report was published it was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who initiated this debate, who stated in this House (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 172, col.52):
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, however, wish to say now that the proposals appeared to them to embody a constructive approach to the problem which deserves the careful consideration of all the peoples and Governments concerned."
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, could anything be less equivocal than that? It is obvious from all that followed the publication of that Report that the late Government intended and wished to proceed further with the plan.
It was in the autumn of the same year that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of
820
State for the Colonies visited Africa and took part in discussions with the representatives of all the communities. As the House will remember—I do not propose to read it because it is printed in the White Paper—a communiqué was issued after the Victoria Falls Conference. It was stated therein:
"That on the main question of federation as so far presented and examined, the Conference (with the exception of the African representative) showed itself favourable to the principle of federation."
Moreover, the communiqué went on to say that:
"The Conference was gravely concerned at the danger that would flow from any weakening or dilution of the British connection."
I was therefore surprised to hear Lord Ammon say in the course of his speech that he thought that African opinion to-day was very unconcerned with the maintenance of the British connection and British traditions in those three territories. Indeed, that is the first time that I have heard that mentioned, either in this debate or outside. I think it proves quite clearly that up to that date (that is, the end of the Victoria Falls Conference), the late Government were in favour of the principle of federation, and they were also eager to strengthen the British connection which, quite rightly, they said had yielded so much benefit to the territories—politically, socially, and economically.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me, but he does not wish to throw any doubt upon the acceptance of the principle of federation—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: —by the Party on this side of the House. I thought that was implied by what he said.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am coming to that particular point in one moment. I wanted to remind noble Lords opposite of what exactly transpired. After the General Election last November, the present Government announced that they were in full accord with the communiqué which had been agreed and accepted by both Secretaries of State at that time, and that, like the late Government, they favoured a scheme

821
of federation on the lines which were recommended in the officials' Report. A debate then took place in another place when both the former Secretaries of State again emphasised their belief in federation and the maintenance of the British connection. So it was quite obvious that up to March the main political Parties of the State favoured the introduction of a federal system of Government and believed that a basis for that federal Government was to be found in the officials' Report.
It seems to me, in view of all that has gone before, that it was a tragedy that no more support was forthcoming from members of the previous Administration, many of whom played a major part in the evolution of this scheme. It was the former Colonial Secretary who set the ball in motion, and at a later stage, in company with his right honourable friend, carried the whole proceedings a stage towards finality. I hope noble Lords will not be surprised if I say that we on these Benches find it extremely difficult to reconcile their views on federation and the scheme as outlined in the officials' Report, in the first place as the Government of the country and in the second place as Her Majesty's Opposition. It is also equally difficult to understand why they have not yet made up their minds. As I understood it, every member on the Benches opposite who took part in the discussion was against the scheme; but not one of them told us whether he thought it was a good scheme or a bad scheme. All they told us was that they were against the scheme, and the Labour Opposition had not yet made up their minds.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know to what legislative body the noble Earl is referring, but he is certainly not referring to this one. I did not criticise the scheme at all. In fact, as I shall be saying later on, I personally support a scheme for federation. What I said was that I did not want any scheme, however good, to be forced through against African opinion.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, but the noble Lord made other suggestions which I am coming to in the course of a few moments. I think he disliked the scheme and, in point of fact, he proposed an alternative to which I shall refer at
822
a later stage—namely, the appointment of some commission such as the East Africa High Commission. I will come to that in the course of a few moments.
LORD OGMORE: If the noble Earl is going to debate, he must surely get the basis of debate correct. I never criticised this scheme at all, and I said that if the Government could not get African support, as an alternative it alight be possible to impose something like the East Africa High Commission. I have always been in favour of federation.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am sure the noble Lord has always been in favour of federation. I am not arguing that for one moment. All I am saying in regard to the scheme as published in the White Paper is that noble Lords opposite have not said whether they thought it was a good scheme or whether they thought it was a bad scheme. Except for the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, they all criticised it. They offered nothing in its place. It would be much simpler if we could have some assurance from noble Lords opposite that a scheme which they would propound and which would receive their support would be based on somewhat similar proposals to the scheme which found expression in the officials' Report.
LORD WINSTER: May I intervene to say that I was at particular pains to point out that I thought the scheme outlined in the White Paper was a workmanlike scheme, very well adapted if we were to have federation? I praised it for the particular pains, taken by those who had prepared it, to safeguard the interests of the Africans. My only argument was that I thought that, in order to gain the confidence of the African people, a reform of racial legislation should take place before the scheme was introduced.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I apologise to the noble Lord. It is true that he did make those observations. But I never really think of him as a strong and ardent supporter of the Opposition.
May I now turn back to the debate which took place last Wednesday and again to-day, and reply to some of the questions which were addressed to us? I think that there was a general opinion in the House, expressed by a number of noble Lords, that opposition to the

823
federal scheme was based almost entirely on fears which the African possessed for his future. One noble Lord spoke of the fear of exploitation, another of the weakness in the African Affairs Board. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, thought that the African would not receive any higher education, and criticised the constitution of the Federal Assembly. It was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who suggested introducing a body somewhat similar to the East African High Commission. It was the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford (who I think has now left your Lordships' House), who thought that the new federal Constitution should be based on that which is functioning in West Africa. Finally, there was Lord Pakenham, who impressed upon the Government his belief that they should not push their proposals without first of all examining again and with great care African objections to the scheme.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is putting it a good deal too mildly. With that reservation, I will accept the account which the noble Earl has given.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: May I now deal with some of the doubts which have been expressed? It has always been recognised by noble Lords opposite and by members of the Government that in any scheme of federation of these three territories, safeguards would have to be embodied within the Constitution to secure that the rights of all parties were preserved and respected. It is not because those rights and privileges would be dissipated if a federal scheme came into operation; for what we have been endeavouring to plan is an enlightened federal Administration which would uphold the interests of all communities. Nevertheless, we recognise that doubts and suspicions may exist in some quarters, and therefore it is right to include in the scheme provisions for the protection of African interests.
I do not want to be led into argument on whether there is a vocal African opinion or not, but I would say from my little knowledge of the African that there is nothing he fears so much as the unknown. He has for many years lived under a system of government which has brought him peace, tranquillity and
824
security, and he may well express reluctance to any change, although such change is intended to he, and must finally be, beneficial to him. It is nevertheless also the fact that in every single case where Africans have expressed doubts and fears about their future, elaborate steps have been taken to overcome them, and if they can now give concrete examples of how under the scheme their rights may in any way be jeopardised, we shall show the same desire to try and meet their difficulties. I have not much doubt that during the journey which my right honourable friend the Minister of State will make in Africa he will take the opportunity of contacting all forms of African opinion, and he will be able to report back on the conditions which he finds prevailing at that time.
I want to remind the House that the preamble of the scheme—and this is very important—lays down that the protectorate status of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are to be affirmed, and that both those territories will continue to enjoy separate Governments, responsible among other matters for local, territorial and political advancement. So your Lordships will observe that, even after federation becomes an accomplished fact, the Territorial Legislatures will still retain control of all those matters which affect the daily life of Africans.
Now what are those questions which are probably uppermost in the minds of the African people?—agriculture, native administration, land questions and primary and secondary education. And on the subject of land questions, let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that in Part II of the White Paper he will see that all the Native Ordinances in these two territories dealing with land questions are, in point of fact, preserved. All these subjects will continue in future to be territorial subjects. It is true that higher education is an item on the federal list, but that does not mean, as implied by one speaker during the debate last Wednesday, that the Africans will not receive any higher education at all. In fact, the intention is exactly the opposite. Higher education, as we know, is a very expensive business which the territories at the present time could not afford individually, but jointly they should be able to provide for it. One would have thought that on higher education, at any rate, if

825
on nothing else, we could now have the support of the African community.
There were, as I also said, some critics of the composition of the Federal Assembly. It was pointed out that out of the thirty-five members only six are Africans, though in fact there will be nine members to represent African interests. As I think many of your Lordships will realise, the scheme does not prevent, either now or in the future, other members in the total number of the Federal Assembly being African. Really, with the best will in the world, I do not believe it is practical politics at the present time to give a greater number of seats to Africans. It was not until 1948 that the first Africans appeared in any Central African Legislature. We are aware—and there is no use hiding the fact—that educationally Central Africa is very backward, and a great deal more political experience will have to be acquired before Africans there can play a fuller part within the affairs of central Government.
I pass now to the African Affairs Board, whose composition and set-up were so fully and adequately explained by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that I need not enter into those matters again except to make one observation. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, objected to the alteration of their functions and the removal of the Minister for African Interests outside the Federal Cabinet. As I say, we are always prepared to receive observations on this subject from any one who can speak with authority. On this ocassion we accepted the advice of the Fabian Colonial Bureau (which, no doubt, should please and satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham), who thought that
"the position of the African Affairs Board as outlined in the officials Report was decidedly dubious."
On the subject of the Minister for African Interests, a pamphlet published by the Fabian Colonial Bureau says:
"If this Minister carried out his duties fully, it would be at least difficult for the Cabinet to work on the principle of collective responsibility."
We altered that proposal in the officials' Report for reasons which my noble friend the Leader of the House gave. I think that the membership of the African Affairs Board is far stronger under the present set-up than when it first appeared in the officials' Report.
826
I come to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that it might be possible to appoint an East African High Commission for these three territories. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will be the first to agree with me that conditions in East Africa are quite different from those in Central Africa, and under the existing Constitutions the three East African territories are all under a Colonial form of government, which is responsible to the Colonial Office. In Central Africa, the three territories are in different stages of constitutional development and Southern Rhodesia has been an independent Colony for some twenty years or more. The essence of the East African High Commission system is that the governing body and legislative organ is a projection of the Governments and Legislatures of the three individual territories, and therefore that body can have only a delegated authority. Although I feel sure that the noble Lord made his proposal with the best intention, it is difficult to see how a body which derives its powers from three Legislatures so different from each other as those in Southern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland could possibly be expected to work harmoniously.
LORD OGMORE: I do not accept that for one moment, but if that were so, how is an even closer body like a Federation to work?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I tried to explain that the East African High Commission was a body which had been set up as a delegated body from three Legislatures. It deals with small plans compared with those to be dealt with by the Federal Assembly proposed for Central Africa. In the Federal Assembly there will be members from the three other territories and there will be a Cabinet with full power constitutionally. It is an entirely different body, from beginning to end, from the East African High Commission, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord would have been fully familiar with the set-up in the lifetime of the late Government.
LORD OGMORE: I attended the inaugural meeting of the East African High Commission and read the message from the Secretary of State. I am fully conversant with the East African High Commission, and although I do not think that

827
it is so good a proposal as federation, I see nothing in what the noble Earl has said to suggest that it is not workable. I agree that it is second best, but I think it is quite as workable as a Federation.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: At this late hour I do not want to repeat my arguments. The noble Lord has seen this body function, and I maintain that it would be better to have a Federation such as that outlined for the three territories of Central Africa.
There are a number of other points which I should have liked to answer. Perhaps there is only one I need deal with now—the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who wished to see a form of government set up in Central Africa similar to that which is in operation in West Africa. Living in West Africa, as he does, the noble Lord must know that the countries are entirely different. That is inevitably so, and it must always be so, in view of the large number of settlers in East Africa and Central Africa compared with those who exist in West Africa. What is applicable to the Gold Coast and Nigeria, certainly could not be applied in a country with a multi-racial community. I hope that I have dealt with the main criticisms which fell to-day and last Wednesday from noble Lords, except the final one which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I regret that at the present time I can go no further than the statement which was made by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
I should like to add this, in conclusion. There is an obligation, and there always has been an obligation, on successive British Governments to promote the wellbeing of all our Colonial peoples, wherever they may be. I think that our mission as a Colonial Power is by no means completed, for there is much to be done socially, economically and politically. But looking back over past years I honestly feel we can take pride that as a nation we have gradually extended to all our partners in the Empire and Commonwealth our sympathy in their aspirations and our help to achieve them. The remarkable progress which has been made by the Dominions in the last seventy-five years is some evidence, I should have thought, of our intentions for the future. Their progress has depended,
828
to a large extent, upon their unity, and in conspicuous examples this has been attained through the introduction of a form of federal government. At the time when those Federations were introduced there were a number of people, as there are to-day, who for one reason or another were opposed to the federal principle. I think your Lordships will agree that time has proved those critics wrong, and the opponents of this scheme I would ask to derive hope from the successes of former days.
The whole of this plan is composed in the true interests of both Europeans and Africans, and the rights of both are fully and adequately safeguarded. If we can secure the rights of the Africans by other words within the federal plan which will give even greater safeguards, they have only to bring the concrete facts before us. The acceptance of this draft federal scheme by the African community will in no way lessen the obligations of Her Majesty's Government towards them. On the contrary, the duty which has rested upon successive Governments in this country for many years to advance and promote African interests will remain unaffected. I believe that we have a plan here, and that if we can go forward with courage and inspiration we shall again write another chapter in the history of our Empire.
8.9 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that we have had an interesting debate, in which we have listened to a large number of thoughtful speeches on both sides. It has been a real debate, with a clash of opinion. Noble Lords have spoken with great seriousness and with the knowledge that what they say might have considerable repercussions. We had two maiden speeches: from the noble Viscount, Lord Ruffside, whom many of us remember gratefully in another capacity, and from the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield, who spoke very shortly. I am sure that what he was going to say would have been interesting, and I hope that next time he addresses us he will feel inclined to speak a little longer, because we shall welcome what he has to say.
There was one curious criticism which was made on Wednesday, but which has not been made to-day, about the initiation of the debate. We were told that

829
no one should initiate a debate until his Party had made up their mind. If that is so, only when our minds are closed could a debate be opened. I am sure no one in your Lordships' House would consider that to be a tenable proposition. I should not like that to be inscribed by the Lord Great Chamberlain, who listens so patiently to our debates, over the portals of this Chamber. As a matter of fact, my mind is made up. I have never changed. My view is the same in Opposition as it was in the Government. Speaking purely personally, I see very little in the scheme proposed by the Government that cannot be improved, if necessary. So far as the federal scheme goes, I have sufficient confidence in the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to know that to any amendment of details which might be required he would be willing to agree. I have great confidence that the noble Marquess would not want to do in Africa anything which he was not certain was in the best interests of the people of the territory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, it is the very essence of the second Conference that what is being said now should receive further consideration before that date.
LORD OGMORE: Yes; and one of the justifications for this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD OGMORE: As I say, I am not making a Party speech, because I believe that in these matters this House has, and should have, great influence as a sort of Council of State, and what we say will be regarded very seriously elsewhere. The main point I made in my opening speech, which I should like to reiterate, is that, however good a scheme it may bee—and I think this is a good scheme, subject to a few amendments that can be made—I do not believe that it is practical politics to "bulldoze" it through against African opinion. We have had that view reinforced by a number of noble Lords, and not only from these Benches. There was the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, whom I must say I thought the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, attacked with a ferocity which he usually reserves for poachers. I do not know why the noble Earl should have treated the right reverend Prelate in the way he
830
did, because, after all, he was putting forward a point of view that is widely held in Church circles, as we all know. There was also the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, speaking for the Methodists, Lord Rea, for the Liberals, Lord Hemingford, for certain Conservative opinion, and Lord Hailey, who, in the last few sentences, said that although he believed, as I do, that on the whole this is a good scheme, he would be against pushing it through in opposition to African opinion.
It was not really until to-day that the vital problem was touched upon, and it was touched upon by, more than anyone else, strangely enough, the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson. At the back of our difficulties is the multi-racial problem, and we have not, in the time available to us, fully gone into that question. That is the basic problem here, as in the whole of East and Central Africa, as the noble Marquess well knows. The multi-racial problem is one which, so far, has pretty well defied solution, and that because we have never tackled it in a way in which we should have tackled it: we have never examined it under a cold light, and tried to think out what our plans should be. Largely that has been because we did not want to hurt people's feelings; we wanted to let sleeping dogs lie. There have been all sorts of justifiable reasons in our minds. Nevertheless, it is the fact that we have never really tackled this question of a multi-racial community, and of what will happen after a certain time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, did raise that point to-day, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, almost did; but they both skirted away from it just as they were getting to the facts. I myself think—and here I speak like "Little Willie," as the only one in step in the regiment—that opinion in this country and in Africa is years behind the times. I feel that both Parties are behind the times; the Churches are behind the times, and African and European opinion is behind the times. I believe that, at some time or other, opinion in this country has got to consider my suggestion of a Council of Greater Britain, which will take care not only of those territories which can never stand on their own feet, politically and economically, but also of the multi-racial territories which, for the same reason, will never be

831
able to stand on their own independent feet. As I say, that is a purely personal opinion, and no one in the world other than myself must be regarded as supporting it, because I know of no one else who does.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about African opinion. We have been told to-day that there is no such thing, or that it is only a small vocal opinion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has a great experience of African opinion—perhaps it is in West Africa, but I do not differentiate greatly between the two—that in many things you cannot expect an African opinion on complicated matters; nor, for that matter, can you expect opinion in this country on complicated matters, as anyone who has fought an Election will know. But rural people—and the Africans are rural people—are very sensitive about land. That is generally one matter about which there is an opinion. There is no doubt that the idea has got about in Africa that in federation there is a threat to their land; that it would mean more settlers, and that their land would be taken away from them. I do not say that that is correct—I do not think it is—but that is what the representatives of the tribesmen told us when they came here. They were not concerned about whether there would be a Minister or an African Board. The one thing they said immediately was that they feared they would lose their land.
The second reason that makes me believe there is African opinion on this subject is that when I was in Kenya—not the last time, but the time before—and we carried out a tour of the East African territories, the first thing I said was that I was there purely for economic and not for political discussions. But when I got to a tribe which is not normally regarded as a political tribe—not like the Kikuyu—the first thing they said to me was: "We are afraid of these Afrikaan fellows; they are coming up here from South Africa. We know what they have done in South Africa, and we are afraid that they will take our land." I believe that right through East and Central Africa there is a fear of infiltration by the South African Boers into their territories. There may be no reason and no justification for that belief—although we
832
do know that there has been a large infiltration into Central Africa from the Union—but the fact remains, whether there is a justification or not, they do fear it. For those two reasons, I think there is an African opinion.
Both the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, have been very fair to the House. They have listened patiently to what we have had to say, and have made excellent speeches themselves—indeed, I have never heard a better speech than that of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on this subject. The impression I derive is that the Government are not absolutely committed. Naturally, they want to consider various opinions, and then there is to be the Conference in October. All I hope and sincerely trust is that the Government will be influenced by the views which they have heard so strongly expressed in this House. And I hope they will understand the necessity of taking with them not all African opinion, of course, but some responsible African opinion, as a first requisite for the success of this scheme. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MERCHANT NAVY MEMORIAL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
LEAMINGTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.