Sitting of 14 July 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
    WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    To be read the Third time Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Pacific Ocean (Radioactivity)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Supply, in view of the resulting disease and death which can be caused by the eating of fish affected by radioactivity from bomb tests in the area of the Pacific Ocean restricted for bomb tests, if he will specify the nature and extent of the study of Pacific Ocean currents which provide the evidence as to the distance and directions infected waters and infected fish can travel from that restricted area.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The Christmas Island tests are high altitude bursts and the fall-out in the locality is extremely low. Careful sampling, continuously carried out, has shown no case in which fish have been contaminated as the result of the tests. The risk of contamination to fish is judged to be negligible.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is a scientific, not a haphazard, matter which deserves a scientific answer, and that he has not given it? Will the right hon. Gentleman have another go? Is he aware that affected fish have been found hundreds of miles away from the sites of these tests and that it is greatly in the public interest that he should deal with the matter in a serious way?
    Mr. Jones: It is on scientific grounds that I affirm that the risk of contamination to fish is negligible.

    Britannia Aircraft
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made with delivery of Britannia aircraft for military purposes.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: The estimate given to the House on 10th March by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air remains unchanged. It is hoped to put the aircraft into service around the end of this financial year, and to continue deliveries thereafter at the rate of one a month.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what date he anticipates that this delivery will be complete?
    Mr. Jones: Doing a very quick bit of mental arithmetic, I should have thought that delivery would be complete some eighteen months from the end of this financial year.

    Aircraft Industry
    Mr. J. Edenasked the Minister of Supply when the internal inquiry into the future of the aircraft industry will be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: The inter-Departmental group of officials which was set up to inquire into the future of aeronautical research and development is now examining other problems relating to the aircraft industry. As decisions are reached on its recommendations, I shall make appropriate statements.
    Mr. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication now as to the plans for the development of the supersonic transport aircraft? Can he also say what amount of money will be spent on research and development in the industry, and, if it is possible, will he also confirm that it is his belief that the production of manned aircraft for military purposes must continue and that where men employed on those manned aircraft are rendered redundant as a result of the cut in the amount of production that takes place, he will, so far as possible, ensure that they will be found alternative employment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite enough.
    Mr. Jones: I am not at all sure that I shall be able to remember all those questions. But to take them in order, on the first question, the development of a supersonic civil transport aircraft, a study is being made of the feasibility of an economic civil transport. Broadly, it is the opinion that there could be an economic civil transport. What is in issue is the kind of transport that would, in fact, be the most economic, but it will be my concern to ensure that decisions are taken as soon as possible. With regard to the second question, the volume of aeronautical research, I think it emerges from the statement which I made to the House before Whitsun that the broad level of expenditure would remain unchanged although the division between civil and military aircraft might change. On the third question, the future of manned aircraft, I believe that manned aircraft will most certainly have a future.
    Mr. Beswick: How wide is this further inquiry going, within the terms of reference given to the committee? When does the Minister expect the inquiry to be completed?
    Mr. Jones: I cannot offhand conjure from the recesses of my mind the exact terms of reference. At the moment, the committee is examining the whole question of export credits. I would hope that an early decision would be reached upon it. I am not at all sure that it would be right to think in terms of this inquiry being completed at a certain moment of time. The existence of this inter-Departmental group of officials has been found to be useful, and I hope that it might have a continued existence.

  HOSPITALS

    Mr. A. H. Barber
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health the total cost to public funds of the case of Barber versus Manchester Regional Hospital Board and the Minister of Health; and to what account this sum is to be charged.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The cost to public funds, apart from any apportionment of the salaries and expenses of officers of the
    798
    Ministry and of the Board, was £13,865 18s. 7d. £6,410 7s. 9d. has been charged to the Ministry of Health Vote (Class V, Vote 4) and the remainder—through the accounts of the regional hospital board—to the Vote for the National Health Service (Class V, Vote 5).
    Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that this was entirely a decision by the Minister, made after protests in this House by me and after a protesting deputation from the regional hospital committee had come, why on earth should they have to pay for the folly of the Minister, who declined to accept all the advice that was given and pigheadedly insisted upon contesting this case until the last minute?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: All these events took place a long time ago, but I certainly do not accept the interpretation of them given by the hon. Member. The dismissal was a matter for the regional hospital board, which is the employing authority. Mr. Justice Barry found that the termination of the employment was wrongful but nevertheless took effect, and therefore he gave a penalty in damages. That figure is, of course, included in the sum to which I have referred.
    Dr. Summerskill: That reply does not answer the Question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The matter got considerable publicity. The House would like to know why the Minister himself decided, at a cost the House has heard, to dismiss the best advice which was given to him and to take action in this matter. The House wants to know why the Minister decided to do so.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Minister is advised by counsel appropriately in this matter. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has never had unsuccessful litigation on behalf of his clients.
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health (1) what steps he has taken to comply with the declaration made against him in the case of Barber versus Manchester Regional Hospital Board and the Minister of Health that, in failing to comply with Clause 16 of the Terms and Conditions of Service, he was in breach of statutory duty;
    (2) whether he is aware that Mr. A. H. Barber who was awarded damages

    799
    against the Minister for wrongful dismissal has still not been offered any employment in the National Health Service; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have asked the Manchester Regional Hospital Board to accept a moral obligation to assist Mr. Barber in obtaining suitable employment if he applies for an advertised vacancy in the usual way. I am sending a copy of my letter to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the fact that I am extremely grateful, for what seemed a slightly modified expression of the duty that fell upon him under Clauses 15 and 16, as declared by Mr. Justice Barry? I accept what appears to be a change of heart. I hope it means that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will try to see that this extremely distinguished gynaecologist, who is highly esteemed in the district, is found suitable employment in the National Health Service?
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that this gynaecologist has been completely exonerated, but that nevertheless such publicity has been given to the case that he must inevitably be prejudiced in the eyes of certain authorities, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake, in the event of his not being accepted for any advertised posts in the near future, that he will take a personal interest in this matter and see that the man is placed in the National Health Service?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady has asked me to do something which I have not actually power to do. I am governed in this matter by Section 14 (2) of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the regulations made thereunder. If the right hon. Lady will study those regulations, she will see that they are explicit that vacancies have to be advertised and that appointments can only follow if the appropriate procedure has been taken. No doubt the hospital board will be mindful of the fact that it has a moral obligation in the case and can pass that on to other employing authorities.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I am not at all satisfied about the moral obligation
    800
    business, because up to the moment it has worked very unsatisfactorily? It has taken about seven months—probably through no fault of his own—to get my right hon. and learned Friend into consultation with the British Medical Association. Can I have an assurance that this moral obligation will, in fact, become something which matters tremendously to the Ministry of Health, the interests of the medical profession itself?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend is wrong; unusually so, but she is wrong. The moral obligation procedure has worked well, as can be seen from the fact that there is only a small residual hard core of cases in which the moral obligation has been accepted in which the employing authorities have as yet found it impossible to find suitable employment. These are, in the main, cases where the person concerned is practising in a speciality which has, in fact, run down.

    Electro-Convulsant Therapy
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he will increase the facilities for the administration of electroconvulsant therapy in the out-patients' departments of general hospitals.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: These facilities are being provided by the responsible hospital authorities as their resources permit.
    Dr. Johnson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend further this type of treatment suggested in this Question, first, on account of the obvious saving of hospital beds which would be entailed if it were successful? Secondly, will he have in mind that on occasions one gets complaints from people who suffer from after effects of this kind of treatment which they attribute to rather intensive courses of treatment in hospitals, sometimes against their own will, and this kind of out-patient treatment would allow them to consult their family doctors from time to time and thus obtain an independent opinion in such circumstances?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As I think my hon. Friend knows, there is an increasing tendency for patients suffering from mental illness to be treated in out-patient departments of mental hospitals. The logical corollary of that is that there should be more facilities for electro-convulsant therapy at those hospitals.

    Tonsillectomy Cases, Tamworth
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Health what was the total number of tonsillectomy cases outstanding for operation, at the last convenient date, at Tamworth Hospital; and whether, in view of the distress of patients and relatives, he will discourage any tendency to refer such cases to Birmingham, because of the shortage of consultant status surgeons available at the hospital in question.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Three hundred and six on 30th June, 1958; the planning of consultant services in the area is a matter for the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board and I should not think it right to interfere with the exercise of their discretion.
    Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that much trouble was taken by his predecessors in office to build up a consultant service in this district, which is separated rather inconveniently from Birmingham from the point of view of transport and cost to relatives getting to Birmingham and back? Could he not ask the regional board to see that the good work done in the past is not cancelled for other reasons?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand the practice to be that normally difficult cases and adult cases are referred to the Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital at Birmingham. What is now proposed is that that practice should be extended to certain other cases over an experimental period of three months. On the face of it, that does not seem an unreasonable way of trying to shorten this waiting list.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that every time the Minister is asked about the position of waiting lists he has to admit a disproportionate number of E.N.T. cases—this is another case—could he say whether he has any policy for trying to tackle this problem, which is common to most hospitals throughout the country?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have policies and ideas in regard to all these problems. I also have a very open and receptive mind in regard to them, and if the right hon. Lady would like to specify any particular thoughts she has in mind, I should be happy to consider them.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Minister is very fond of evading questions and replying by
    802
    asking me how he should solve his problems. If he would like to sit here I could sit on the bench opposite and solve them. Surely it must be clear to him that there is only one way of reducing the number ear, nose and throat cases—in this case, it means a large number of small children with big tonsils waiting for months, sometimes years, to be attended to—and that is to introduce more people who can solve the problem—[Laughter.]—in other words, E.N.T. surgeons. I do not know why there should be laughter about this.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have waited a long time for the right hon. Lady to respond to one of my invitations. If that is the extent of the contribution she has to make, I should reply that those broad general approaches are already in my mind and it is the way of doing these things which is really troublesome.
    Mr. Snow: In view of the Minister's reply and of the anxiety of my constituents in this matter, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    South-East Metropolitan Area (Nurses)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health how many beds in mental deficiency units are out of commission in the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board Area because of shortage of nursing staff.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Two hundred and thirty.
    Mr. Goodhart: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the number of beds standing empty because of shortage of staff is nearly equal to the number of mental patients awaiting entrance to these units in this area?
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister assure the House that those beds are not empty through lack of finance but because of the shortage of nurses?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, that is so. It is not due to lack of finance but to recruitment difficulties. There have been increases in the number of staff over the last three years which should meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).
    Dr. Summerskill: Could the Minister tell the House bow he can reconcile that

    803
    position with the fact that there are waiting lists of potential nurses for London hospitals?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That raises a question of distribution, on which I have answered several Parliamentary Questions recently, and which, as the right hon. Lady may recollect, is being studied by a special sub-committee of the National Committee on Recruitment.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to stimulate the recruiting of nursing staff for mental deficiency units in the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board Area.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Regional Hospital Board has appointed a deputy nursing officer with special responsibility for recruitment, is encouraging the holding of open days at the mental deficiency hospitals, is devoting special attention to the improvement of nurses' living accommodation in these hospitals, and intends to hold a mental health exhibition in the area shortly. As regards the action taken to stimulate nurse recruitment generally, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to a Question by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) on 16th December last.
    Mr. Goodhart: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can tell me how the shortage of staff in this area compares, proportionately, with the shortage of staff in other areas?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I should not like to give an exact ratio, but I think there is nothing exceptional in the position in this region, which shares with the rest of the country the improving trend in staff to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend on an earlier question.

    University College Dental Hospital
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the plans for University College Dental Hospital which have been under discussion for 10 years.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): Revised sketch plans were submitted in January and are acceptable
    804
    to my Department and the University Grants Committee. The revised plans provide for an increased student intake and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes it will shortly be possible to authorise the board of governors to invite tenders.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my hon. Friend for that very useful bit of information, may I ask him to see that there is no further delay? It has taken very long to get as far as we have already gone, and it is rather boring for everybody.
    Mr. Thompson: I will do my best in that matter, but I am bound to say that it involves £500,000, excluding the cost of equipment. It takes a good deal of thinking about.
    Mrs. Slater: In view of the fact that the Minister of Health has just admitted the terrible shortage of dentists in the country and the immediate concern, especially about the treatment of children's teeth, would it not be wise expenditure to hurry on the beginning of this university?
    Mr. Thompson: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is because of the shortage of dentists and to meet university requirements that the original provision for an intake of thirty-five students a year has been revised and an intake of fifty is now proposed.

    Broadmoor Institution (Security Precautions)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Health what action he will take to improve security precautions at Broad-moor.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Board of Control has decided to hold an inquiry into the recent incident at Broadmoor Institution, and I must await its report.
    Mr. Lipton: Will this inquiry be a full inquiry, in view of the widespread public misgivings caused by the recent escape? For example, will the inquiry take note of the unanimous view of the 230 male nurses and others, employed at Broad-moor who have made urgent representations to the Minister as recently as last Friday that, from the security point of view, the Home Office should have some say in this matter?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This will be a full inquiry in the sense that it will inquire into all matters which are relevant and into which it is constitutionally proper for the Board of Control to inquire.
    Mr. Hurd: Will this be an independent inquiry such as the Scott Henderson inquiry, which threw a very useful light on some very difficult problems? I am asking this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). Is my hon. Friend aware that the local people are very anxious that there should be a full and independent inquiry?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This will not be an independent inquiry in the sense of the Scott Henderson Committee in June, 1952. I have already said that this is an inquiry by the Board of Control. It is an inquiry into this specific incident which, as I have explained to the House, is the first serious escape since the publication of the Scott Henderson findings in 1952. The procedures were reviewed by the Scott Henderson Committee. This is obviously a more narrow approach.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the very remarkable achievements in curing people by Broadmoor and not be panicked by this sort of thing into making medical treatment in Broadmoor impossible?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes. I have already explained to the House last Wednesday that I have in mind the considerations to which the hon. and learned Member referred as well as the conditions of security which have been raised by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd).
    Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that this raises not only the question of mental treatment but also the possibility that the Board of Control is not the best body to examine what might be called questions of security? In view of the fact that all elderly people living alone in the surrounding neighbourhood and county are made most uneasy, will he bear in mind that this is not a stunt but that this expression of their feeling is genuine?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Nobody queries for a moment the feelings to which my hon. Friend has referred, but these matters must be considered in their proper context. As I have already explained, this is the first escape of a serious nature other than—
    Mr. Lipton: What has that to do with it?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It enables people to see these things in proper proportion. This is the first escape since the summer of 1952. If it is possible as a result of this experience to do anything to improve the security arrangements, my hon. Friend can be quite certain that we shall see that it is done.

    Specialist Services
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the payment of a specialist fee by mineworkers in the Ashington area of Northumberland determines the speed of the treatment needed; and whether he will examine this matter and make a statement.
    Mr. Owenasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that mineworkers scheduled for specialist advice, medical treatment, or surgical treatment under the National Health Service, are subject to unusually long waiting periods, within the Ashington area of the County of Northumberland; and whether he will examine this problem and make a statement.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am aware that waiting periods for treatment at the Ashington Hospital are sometimes long and the facilities there are to be extended. I am not quite sure what the hon. Member has in mind regarding specialists' fees; there are no pay beds in this hospital.
    Mr. Owen: The problem that at this moment really concerns my constituents may not directly apply to the Ashington Hospital but to the Northern Regional Hospital Board. Is the Minister aware that two brothers have waited for nine weeks to secure an appointment for the diagnosis of their problem? One brother elected to pay £3 specialist fees and secured an appointment in four days, but the other brother continues to wait. Will the Minister be good enough to look into this matter and let the House have the result of his findings?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In view of what the hon. Gentleman alleges, I think he had better send me particulars of the case he has in mind. I will certainly look into it.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that this is taking place quite a lot in the North? Only last Saturday a constituent of mine—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was a question, but the second part looks like being a speech.
    Mr. Popplewell: No. Far from it being a speech, I shall give the Minister certain particulars.
    Mr. Speaker: Giving particulars is not a proper exercise at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman should either write to the Minister or put his question in an interrogative form.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that a miner of North Walbottle pit has been waiting eighteen weeks for an operation for double hernia and he has been told that it will be at least another six weeks before he can be considered for an operation? However, he paid three guineas to a specialist and was told that he could be taken in at once and an operation performed immediately. Will the Minister look at such cases if I send them to him?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly look at any case the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend likes to send me.
    Dr. Summerskill: There may be a point here which concerns Privilege. A Question has been put to the Minister about the action of a consultant. It has been said that one of two brothers went to a consultant and paid three guineas, in consequence of which he was given a bed in four days, but the other brother, who simply went to hospital and did not make a payment, has had to wait many weeks.
    The Minister, in answer, says to my hon. Friend that if he will write to him giving him all the details he will carefully consider the matter. If my hon. Friend writes to the Minister he must give the name of the physician, and by giving the name of the physician and the details it will suggest that this physician has been guilty of improper practice. Therefore, I should like your guidance
    808
    on this matter, Mr. Speaker. In order to defend my hon. Friend from heavy damages, may I ask you whether he should respond to the Minister's request and send the letter, which might mean defaming the consultant?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me. It is entirely hypothetical. I do not know the circumstances. This matter started with a Question in Parliament of which an hon. Member has given notice. I think it is an entirely different thing from the matter we were discussing the other day.
    Mr. Paget: May we take it then, Mr. Speaker, that your Ruling is that if a letter is sent in response to a suggestion of the Minister, in your view it thereby becomes a proceeding in Parliament?
    Mr. Speaker: I am merely stating that to my mind, and I think to most hon. Members' minds, a matter which arises from a Question on the Order Paper in Parliament stands in a different position from a matter such as we were discussing the other day as regards being a proceeding in Parliament. There is no doubt that this Question is a proceeding in Parliament.
    Mr. Bevan: Would it not be undesirable that there should be the slightest confusion about this matter? Is not the Minister of Health directly responsible to Parliament for the administration of the whole National Health Service, and is not that therefore a proceeding within Parliament?
    Mr. Speaker: That raises wider issues. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the first I heard or saw of this matter was when it was raised in the Question, which is a quite different position from the letter we were discussing the other day. I express no opinion about that matter. That is a matter of opinion, and was one for the House.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. From the Ruling you have just given, Mr. Speaker, it would appear that if hon. Members have any case that might seem to involve an innuendo against any individual they should first table a Question to give themselves a legal safeguard and then send the matter to the Minister. Would you advise us of what we are to do during the three months of the Parliamentary Recess?
    Mr. Speaker: That matter goes very wide of the question at the moment. There is to be a discussion of the whole of this matter shortly between myself and the Leader of the House, and I hope that some concrete proposals will come before the House.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health the total number of full-time and part-time specialists, respectively, employed in the National Health Service at the latest available date and twelve months previously.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The available figures for whole-time consultants and senior hospital medical officers are 3,170 on 30th June, 1956, and 3,192 on 30th September, 1957. The corresponding figures for part-time are 5,708 and 5,813.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do all he can to avoid any special preference being given, in effect, to part-time appointments, in view of the importance of encouraging the development of full-time appointments?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will have that in mind, but I am sure that in this context the hon. Member has in mind the provisions of Section 12 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949.

    Nurses
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health to what extent it is anticipated that the 44-hour working week for nurses, now being implemented in hospitals, will result in an increase in hospital nursing staffs.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I hope that it will be possible to make considerable progress in the shortening of working hours by reorganising the work of the nurses and midwives without any substantial increases in numbers of staff. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum sent to hospital boards and committees on this matter.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the Minister had any evidence whatever of dislocation or difficulty arising out of this very desirable limitation or reduction in working hours?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. The recommendation of the Nurses and Mid-wives' Whitley Council was conveyed to
    810
    hospital authorities on 10th June asking that these hours should be reduced in this way as soon as conditions permit, having regard to the availability of staff and subject always to the requirements of the service. I am very hopeful that the reduction will be achieved without any necessity of increased staff, and certainly without detriment to the service.
    Mrs. Braddock: While the staffs are very satisfied with the suggested reduction in hours, is the Minister aware that the fact that his circular tells management committees that they will not be permitted any increase in the money that it allowed to them if they recruit additional staff is making the position very difficult for those responsible for administering the hospitals?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think it should make it difficult because, as many surveys of the nursing services have shown, there is ample scope for re-organisation of the duty rosters and other methods of rationalisation which should shorten hours without the addition of staff or the loss of efficiency.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister not agree that there are some cases at least in which an increase in nursing staff is urgently needed?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, but those cases must be looked at in the individual context and not as part of a consequence of a general reduction of hours such as this.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Poliomyelitis
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Health what arrangements are made to supply poliomyelitis vaccine to adults travelling to parts of the world where danger of infection is high.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There are at present no comprehensive arrangements for this under the National Health Service, but certain classes of travellers are covered by arrangements made by the Foreign Office, Commonwealth Relations Office, Colonial Office and the Service Departments.
    Mrs. White: Does not the Minister think that, in view of the very tragic cases which have been brought to his

    811
    notice in recent months, something much more specific is required? There have been cases in Pakistan, Indonesia and other places where British women have gone without protection and died, sometimes after an illness of only a couple of days. It seems to me that it is quite wrong. Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that adequate arrangements should be made to protect these people before they go to places where polio is endemic? Does he not think that proper arrangements should be made and publicised to travel agencies and at the air ports?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I quite take the hon. Lady's point. We have, as she well knows, approached the question of poliomyelitis vaccinations on a priority basis and have given priority to children of certain specified groups. In that matter, I have acted on the advice of the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and I am prepared to take this point to the committee and take its advice upon it.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make a report on the outbreak of poliomyelitis in the Waterhouses area, near Leek, Staffordshire; and what expert help was sent into the area to cope with the outbreak.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Four paralytic and seven non-paralytic cases occurred in this area during the second half of June; there have been no reports of further cases. The medical officer of health concerned has received assistance from the Public Health Laboratory Service and a medical officer of my Department has also visited for consultation.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that already one young lady has died in this area and that the incidence is twelve people to a village population of a few hundred? Is he further aware that as soon as the village school which was affected near Water-houses heard of the outbreak the education authority "whipped in" wooden lavatories? Would the Minister send someone from his Department to see the appalling condition of the sanitation? Will he assure me that he will do his utmost to make grants to the local
    812
    authority in view of the fact that it is a holiday resort and that every weekend thousands of people pour into the area and that the medical officer of health and the local J.P. are now saying that the River Hamps is contaminated? Will he also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These very long supplementary questions—
    Mr. Davies: I have nearly finished, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should be given a chance to reply. I would point out to the House that the length of supplementary questions is growing tremendously. I receive complaints that we do not get through a sufficient number of Questions. Supplementary questions are now four times as long as they used to be, when we got through a number of Questions.
    Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is now very difficult to make reports on general practitioners and medical officers of health in cases like this where a member may very easily be accused of defamation in a letter. The only weapon we now have is a string of supplementary questions to protect ourselves.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members must balance that consideration against fairness to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about these cases. The matter of grants is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the school matters to which he refers are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. I am sure that they will take note of what he has said.

    Chiropodists (Registration)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health when he expects to introduce new legislation with a view to the regularising of the present position in the chiropody profession; and if he will include in such legislation provisions to safeguard the position of those who have been earning their living as practising chiropodists and can produce satisfactory medical evidence to that effect.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have recently drawn up a revised scheme for the statutory registration of professions supplementary to medicine, which would require legislation to bring it into effect. It has recently been considered at a conference of all the bodies concerned and we are now considering the views then expressed.
    Dr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply to the first part of my Question, may I now ask him to reply to the second part, namely, whether he will have in mind the position of those whose qualifications, through no fault of their own, do not meet the present requirements owing to the fact that they may have acquired those qualifications twenty or thirty years age? Cannot he make the position such as that under the Dentists Act, 1921, by which these people can still continue to practise under any scheme if they have an appropriate recommendation?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Under the provisions of the registration scheme as at present drafted, responsibility for admitting persons to the register will lie with the registration board and it will be for it to apply the criteria. If for any reason the scheme were to break down and not come into effect, I would be prepared to consider whether any revision of the present arrangements is desirable in the context mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    Cancer
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Health what evaluation he has made of the report, a copy of which has been sent to him, prepared by Mr. Percy Stocks of the British Empire Campaign Council on cancer; with what result; and if he will arrange for its findings to be studied within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Health what consideration he has given to the researches of Dr. Percy Stocks into the causation of cancer, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Govan; and what steps he proposes to take to have the conclusions of Dr. Stocks studied further.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), on 7th July.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: While appreciating that reply, and while appreciating that this is an excellent report, no doubt, for specialists on the subject of cancer, I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should ask a question if he has one to ask.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that this report has received very wide publicity and needs some evaluation from the point of view of the public, because from Press reports it appears that one can get cancer not only from cigarette smoking and pipe smoking, but also through eating fried foods, frequent beer drinking, living near igneous rocks, having organic carbon in the garden, and early marriage?
    Mr. Rankin: As I do not know the terms of the reply given on 7th July, may I ask if the Minister will use his influence to see that when the results of the work of this distinguished scientist are made public they are not expressed in terms which cause alarm in the public mind? Does he realise that one of the things now supposed to be predisposing factors in the cause of cancer is the eating of fish and chips, and that fact can cause widespread depression throughout the country?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Dr. Stocks' report, which is an exceptionally detailed and interesting one, is one of a number of studies on this subject. It is primarily of interest, of course—and intended to be—for research workers in this field, but I shall study his findings with great interest. As to the specific matters mentioned by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite, further research is needed before any action on presumed connection between cancer and any of the factors other than smoking would be required.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: The Minister has referred to smoking. Will he tell the House what further steps he proposes to take to discourage what evidently is a very

    815
    dangerous habit among young people, and particularly to discourage advertising of tobacco products?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall shortly be issuing a circular to local health authorities asking for a report from them on what action they have taken in bringing the question of the connection between smoking and lung cancer before the public.

    Dental Services, Swindon
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Health what steps he will take to improve dental services in Swindon in view of growing local complaints about their inadequacy and about delays.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not aware of any special difficulty about the dental services at Swindon provided under the National Health Service. In the case which the hon. Member has sent to me, the complaint relates mainly to the school dental service and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will write to him about it.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will be aware that there are a number of matters within his responsibility which are causing very great anxiety in Swindon. May I ask if he will take up this question of the school dental service with his right hon. Friend to see that something is done very quickly about it? Will he look carefully into the detailed cases of a number of constituents which I have submitted to him within the last few days and, still more, cases which will be coming in?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There is a national shortage of dentists, as we all know, but the ratio of dentists to the population in Swindon is slightly ahead of the national average. On the broader question, I am already in touch with my right hon. Friend and shall be writing to the hon. Member.

    Mass Radiography, West Midlands
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the success of the mass X-ray examination of miners in North Staffordshire, he will now institute examinations of a similar character at foundries in the West Midlands.
    Mr. R. Thompson: The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board undertakes mass X-ray surveys of factories, including those
    816
    which have foundry workers, as part of the normal programme.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a different sort of examination from that held in Staffordshire, in that it is held in separate establishments and not at the foundry? Is he aware that what we are asking is that it should be held in the foundries in the same way as, in North Staffordshire, it is held at the mines?
    Mr. Thompson: It is a matter for the regional hospital board to settle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I have said, there are mass radiography surveys in the West Midlands, and they undertake factory surveys and sessions for examination of patients referred by general practitioners.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. Member mean that there is a shortage of radiographers or a shortage of X-rays, or does he mean that he has had a shortage of time in which to examine this matter?
    Mr. Thompson: No, Sir. I do not mean any of these things. If the hon. Member looks at the answer to a Question recently on this subject, I think he will see that, on the whole, the progress made in this direction has been highly satisfactory.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister consider this very carefully in view of the fact that in all industrial areas there are men working in foundries who would benefit considerably if he were to do as my hon. Friend has suggested? If he is only to bring it to the attention of the regional hospital board, that is not sufficient. Will he do more, in view of the fact that this is a very important way of reducing chronic bronchitis in the country?
    Mr. Thompson: I appreciate that but, as I have said, the present surveys include factory surveys and they do not necessarily exclude foundry workers on that account.
    Mr. Dugdale: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

    Motor Tricycle (Personal Case)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Minister of Health when he will be ably to supply a new all-weather tricycle for steering

    817
    with the right hand to Mr. A. E. Berry, 26, Queens Gardens, Brighton, who is in urgent need of such a tricycle.
    Mr. R. Thompson: A new motor tricycle with the controls Mr. Berry needs is expected to be available for him in about six weeks' time.

    Health Centres
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health the total number of health centres in operation, under construction and planned, respectively, at the latest available date; and what action is being taken to encourage their further development.
    Mr. R. Thompson: Nine health centres established by local health authorities since the appointed day are in operation. Three are under construction, and another will be started this year. Nine other schemes have been proposed, and three at least of these are likely to be started in 1959–60. My right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to consider proposals for more of these centres within the limitations on capital expenditure, but it is right that the initiative should be taken locally.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of recent statements which, I understand, the Minister made concerning his interest in developing health centres, are we to take it that he will not send out a special circular to health authorities inviting them to submit new proposals?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not know what my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind on that, but I have no doubt that he will take note of what the hon. Member has said. It is, however, right that the initiative in these matters should be taken locally, as the success of a centre depends entirely on the attitude of the local practitioners and others concerned.

    Old People (Chiropody)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what discussions he has had with local authorities and interested professional and voluntary bodies regarding the extended provision of chiropody services for old people.
    Mr. R. Thompson: Representations in favour of extending the present chiropody services have been received from a number of local authority, professional
    818
    and voluntary organisations. While we would all like to see an extension of this service, the continuing need to limit expenditure precludes my right hon. and learned Friend from authorising further provision for the time being.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that some saving could very well be obtained if an extension of chiropody services were now being organised and planned? Would it not be the proper first step to get in touch with the local authorities and discuss the matter with them?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, Sir, but we have to consider the cost, which is an estimated £1¼ million per annum, for providing a free chiropody service under the National Health Service. With so many other calls on our resources, we have to consider seriously whether that is the appropriate employment of such a large sum of money.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Road Accidents (Alcohol)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Health as representing the Lord President of the Council, how soon the Report of the Medical Research Council on the effect of alcohol on driving capacity will be published; and what steps will be taken by his Department to make the recommendations of the Report as widely known as possible.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health as representing the Lord President of the Council, what is the object of the revision, before publication, of the Report upon the effect of alcohol on the skill of drivers of motor vehicles; and by whom it is being carried out.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Report is being revised by its author on the advice of the scientific panel under whose auspices the research was carried out. The object of the revision is to correct minor errors and simplify the presentation of the statistics. My noble Friend will arrange for the publication of the Report as soon as it is in his hands, but I cannot at present add to what I said about the date of publication in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on 7th July.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that this very important Report will not be passed round too many Departments and committees before the House has a chance of reading it?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My noble Friend has every intention of publishing this Report. It may be that it will be possible to have a preliminary publication of the main findings in a form suitable for scientific journals.

  U.S.S.R. (EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent note of the Soviet Government to Her Majesty's Government declining to participate in discussions on the exchange of information and the jamming of broadcasts.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Soviet Government in April the early holding of talks to promote the free exchange of information, views and personal contacts, including the cessation of jamming, the unrestricted sale of books, newspapers and films and improved travel facilities. The Soviet Government's reply of 16th June avoids direct reference to these topics, which it describes as
  "complex questions on which there exist serious disagreements".
  Her Majesty's Government regret that the Soviet Government have not accepted this proposal.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Soviet jamming of B.B.C. broadcasts still going on? If so, to what extent?
  Commander Noble: As far as I am aware, it is still going on.

  AFRICA (FRENCH AND BRITISH TERRITORIES)
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate discussions with the Government of France regarding the integration of territories under French and British administrations in Africa where there are
  820
  racial and economic grounds for union or federation.
  Commander Noble: No, Sir, my right hon. and learned Friend does not think this would be appropriate. Her Majesty's Government could only consider such an initiative in the light of a clear indication of the wishes of the people of the British territories concerned; no such basis exists at present.
  Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that many of these frontiers are quite artificial and arbitrary, particularly as illustrated in Togoland and the Cameroons, where they have been divided, may I ask whether we will take the initiative in meeting African movements towards federation of these territories?
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have just given. The opinion of the people of these territories is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

  THE LEBANON
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of he will make a further statement clarifying the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the present troubles in the Lebanon.
  Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on this subject on 2nd July.
  Mr. Hughes: Wilt thou slay the Lebanese as thou didst the Egyptians yesterday, or will the Government give an undertaking that they will not again infringe the principles of the United Nations as they did at Suez?
  Commander Noble: In spite of that carefully rehearsed impromptu question, I have nothing to add.
  Mr. C. Davies: Does not the policy of Her Majesty's Government require immediate reconsideration in view of the events that are happening in Iraq, as well as, possibly, in the Middle East generally?
  Commander Noble: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend will be answering a Question later about Iraq.

  THAILAND (ISTHMUS OF KRA)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions have taken place between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the effects on Singapore trade of the United States plan to cut a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Siam.
  Commander Noble: None, Sir.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the idea of such a canal has been ventilated from time to time? Can he assure us that informal talks have not taken place at some levels lower than Government level?
  Commander Noble: I can certainly give the hon. Member that assurance. Of course, as the House knows well, the possibility of constructing a canal across the Kra Isthmus has long been thought of in Thailand.

  "HOLIDAY IN SYLT" (FILM)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date consultations took place between his Department and the Associated Rediffusion company about the proposed exhibition of the film, "Holiday in Sylt"; who initiated these discussions; and why.
  Commander Noble: At the invitation of Associated Rediffusion, two Foreign Office officials attended a showing of the film "Holiday in Sylt" on 5th May; this invitation was extended on 30th April, when the company first consulted the Foreign Office about the film. It is not for me to answer why the company in this instance decided to consult the Foreign Office; I can only say that journalists and broadcasters dealing with questions of foreign affairs frequently and naturally do so.
  Mr. Swingler: May we know what opinion was expressed by the Foreign Office in view of the fact that the company had engaged to exhibit this film on 8th May and somehow, in the period in between, during which the Foreign Office saw the film, it was suddenly decided to withdraw it? Does the right hon. and
  822
  gallant Gentleman still stick to the view that the Foreign Office had nothing whatever to do with it?
  Commander Noble: The Foreign Office officials explained to the company that the film, which was made by the East German authorities, contained deliberate distortions of historical facts in order to serve the interests of Communist propaganda. Whether or not the film was shown was a matter for the company.

  UNITED NATIONS (WORLD REFUGEE YEAR)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision has been taken with regard to proposing at the forthcoming assembly of the United Nations a world refugee year.
  Commander Noble: No decision has yet been taken on this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be able to make a statement shortly.
  Dame Irene Ward: In view of the need to get the matter settled—I hope, satisfactorily—may I ask whether there will be a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
  Commander Noble: I cannot give my hon. Friend a guarantee, but it is my understanding that there is a considerable body of support for this proposal in the country. That is why we are giving this important matter urgent consideration.

  EAST-WEST TRADE
  Dr. Kingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the proposed relaxation of embargoes on East-West trade.
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many times the Co-ordinating Committee of the Paris Consultative Group has met since 19th May; and, approximately, how many classes of exports it is hoped to remove from the embargo list as a result of these deliberations.
  Commander Noble: The Co-ordinating Committee of the Paris Consultative

  823
  Group has met thirty times since 19th May. I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) on 8th July.
  Dr. King: Can the Minister confirm the statement made by Mr. Dulles at the Press conference on 1st July that there will be appreciable reductions in the strategic list, and will he continue to treat this matter as one not only of importance but of urgency?
  Commander Noble: I think I would rather refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave last week.
  Mr. Swingler: May we have an assurance that there will be a statement before the Summer Recess on the results of what are now over 100 meetings of the Committee to consider relaxing these controls?
  Commander Noble: If a definite statement can be made before the House rises we shall, of course, wish to do so, but I cannot guarantee that it will in fact be possible, because I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that it is not a matter for us alone.

IRAQ
Mr. Bevan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the position in Iraq, in view of our treaty relationships with that country.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have little to add to Press and wireless reports. A telegram received from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Baghdad at 7.30 a.m. this morning reported that Baghdad Radio was in the hands of a revolutionary Government and had announced the
824
establishment of an Iraqi Republic with Brigadier Abdul Karim Qasim as Prime Minister.
The whereabouts of the King, Crown Prince and Nuri Said were unknown and there had been some fighting round the Palace, where the King was believed to have been in residence. There were considerable demonstrations in the streets. The United Kingdom Information Office and Consular Section building, which was surrounded by crowds, was evacuated.
Her Majesty's Ambassador added that Baghdad Radio had broadcast an appeal to respect foreign Missions. All Embassy staff and families were safe and he had advised the British community to stay at home. Nothing, however, has been heard from the Embassy since 9 a.m., when it was reported that they would not be sending further messages for the time being owing to the presence of rioters in the courtyard.
A telegram despatched at 10 a.m. this morning has been received from the Officer Commanding the Royal Air Force at Habbaniya that all was well with British personnel there.
I will, of course, keep the House informed of further developments.
Mr. Bevan: As the situation is confused and so unclear that no definite judgment can yet be formed as to what has happened, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep the House informed of developments there, and take steps to see that British lives are safe?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly. I think that while the situation is so unclear we would be wise to abstain from comment on it.
The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is very much in the mind of the Government.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts) and of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1957.
The Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in form, at any rate, deals with the year 1956 and the most recent Report of the National Coal Board with the year 1957. We are now, of course, half-way through 1958 and a good deal of what I shall have to say to the House, and how I think I can best assist hon. Members, will be largely in bringing the situation up-to-date and with commenting upon the situation in which we now find ourselves.
I believe that when the history of the coal industry in the years since the war and since vesting day comes to be written, it may well be that this year, 1958, will have proved to have been a turning point. It has pin-pointed many of the fundamental problems which are always there and I think that it is not too much to say that the livelihood of all those concerned in the industry and much of the future of British industry, to which, of course, the coal industry must for many years to come provide the principal sources of power, will depend on the way in which the industry as a whole reacts.
I hope to show the House that the position is by no means so discouraging as might be imagined. Indeed, paradoxical as it may sound, I think that in some ways the position of the industry is more hopeful today and that it is in a healthier condition than in some recent years. However that may be, there is no doubt as to the immediate challenge which faces it.
Coal was last debated in this House about eighteen months ago, in February last year. I shall have to give the House quite a number of figures with which I fortified myself in preparing for this debate, but I hope that they will be helpful, and I will make them as few as possible. When we were discussing the industry last, the most recent figures for inland consumption were 218 million tons
826
a year and to that had to be added about 10 million tons exported or for bunkers. That was the highest figure of home consumption, I am advised, on record. It was nearly 40 million tons greater than the consumption of 1945, just before vesting day, and, perhaps even more significant, 30 million tons higher than the peak level of consumption in the interwar years.
In those ten years up to the beginning of this period which we are discussing this afternoon, we have a period in which coal consumption increased every year, with two brief interruptions. The increase has varied. It is true that it has been as low as 1 million tons and as much as 10 million tons increase in one year. In 1957, last year, the home consumption fell by 5 million tons, and when we include exports and bunkers it fell by 7 million tons. That is not the end of it.
In the first half of this year, inland consumption is already down by 1 million tons compared with the first half of last year. I do not want to weary the House with some adjustments. Those more expert in the matter than I—I see several of those among hon. Members opposite—will know that temperature and such things play a very large part. The fall in demand between the first half of last year and this, making adjustments, is equivalent to about 3 million tons and exports have also fallen very seriously.
What is the reason? It is an illusion sometimes held and it should be dissipated at once that it is due to a fall in industrial production. That is not true. Industrial production has not fallen. Both industrial production and total energy consumption, comparing 1956 with 1958, are approximately the same. What has happened is that the consumption of oil over those two periods has greatly increased and has been roughly equivalent to the fall in the demand for coal.
Actually, the use of black oils has increased by over 40 per cent. Why? There are a number of reasons which we all know, such as convenience, and so on, but the fundamental reason, or, at any rate, a fundamental reason, is this. Between 1951 and 1957 the average pithead price of coal went up by 60 per cent., roughly twice the increase in the cost of living. The average delivered price of

827
fuel oil is today only one-fith more than it was in 1951. In other words, if we compare the price of coal and the price of oil when we are deciding which is the appropriate fuel to use in industry, coal has gone up by about one-third in comparison with its great competitor in this very short period of about six years.
That is a fact; and I shall be dealing much with facts, some pleasant, some unpleasant, today; but that is a fact which all concerned must bear in mind in considering the prospects of their industry.
Faced with that rapidly rising competition and that fall in the demand for coal it is, unfortunately, true that the industry did not begin this year in a good situation. Absence rates were high; output per manshift was nearly 2½ per cent. lower than a year earlier. With a colliery manpower as much as 712,000, 3,000 more than a year previously, and with Saturday working still continuing, it was estimated that deep-mine production would be not more than 205 million tons a year.
In that situation the National Coal Board, which had already incurred a loss of £5 million the year before, would have faced a further loss, if nothing had been done, which could well have reached quite intolerable proportions of well up to or more than £30 million in the current year. That was the situation in January and February of this year, against the background which I have already given to the House.
Fortunately, the Coal Board reacted with great decision to that situation, and—what I am sure Sir James Bowman would agree with me is even more important—the steps it took were taken with very substantial co-operation from within the industry. Three main steps were taken. First, plans were worked out in consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers for the premature closing of some collieries, about 15 in 1958. I must make it plain that this is in addition to those which are being steadily closed over a period of years. Those 15 collieries, I am informed, produced just under 1 million tons of coal last year at a loss of slightly under £2 million.
The next step was the discontinuance of Saturday working. Saturday working is unpopular with everybody in the industry, unpopular with the men,
828
unpopular with the Board, and if it is never started again I think that most people will be pleased. However that may be, the discontinuance of Saturday working assists very substantially in dealing with the reduction in demand.
The third step was much the most important, and I want to direct a few moments to considering it with the House. The Board decided to stop recruitment to the industry. There are exceptions—for instance, at certain pits where men must be taken on to exploit exceptional opportunities, and, more important, of course, juvenile recruitment was always excepted, because without that the industry's long-term future would become grave.
The importance of this step is so great that I want to say one or two things about it to avoid misconception, and I am sure that I shall have, at this point at least, both sides of the House with me. We must remember that the industry's loss by ordinary wastage is about 60,000 men a year, which is a very large number, and it is so substantial that a ban on recruitment can quickly secure a big reduction in the level of colliery manpower, without—and this is the point—any threat to the jobs of the men already in the industry.
There may, of course, be from time to time local difficulties and exceptions which we all know, but the essential point is that any desirable level of lower manpower can be obtained without redundancy, without the slightest fear that a man, by co-operating in making the industry more productive, may be working himself out of a job. I am sure that it is of vital importance to make that absolutely clear.
Secondly, I think it is essential that parents, schoolmasters, all concerned, should be quite clear that there will still be every opportunity for the right kind of youngster to enter this industry, which is now still one of the very highest paid industries in the country. It would be absolutely disastrous if there were any kind of feeling in the colliery districts that to go into this industry could be going into a dead end, and that after a year or two we might get back to the bad old days when there would be no work.
Any man in the industry who is doing well has not the slightest fear that, as a

829
result of this cutting down by the Board of the total of manpower in search for higher productivity, any man's job is at stake, and none thinking of entering the industry should be put off by any fear that he may be entering a dead end. There are, of course—I shall not go into them—quite apart from the high level of wages many other advantages: great improvements in standards of safety, pithead baths, canteens, and so on, and so forth, which I could enlarge upon if necessary.
These measures have been so far substantially effective. They have achieved considerable results. Output has been adjusted downwards and there has been a valuable increase of output per manshift. I have the June figures. With the number of men employed substantially less than a year before, deep-mine output was 6 per cent. less; but the reduced output was accompanied—and this is the important point—by a 3½ per cent. higher output per manshift overall. Ultimately, the prices of coal are more affected by output per manshift than anything else.
This is the most encouraging of recent developments. If it can be maintained, and, better still, of course, improved, and no new demands are made on the finances of the industry, the worst fears for the year's out-turn will certainly not be realised. It is too soon to make any reliable new forecast of what the outcome may be. In the early months of this year, up to date, the Coal Board has made a small profit, but, of course, it made a profit last year, and we know by sad experience that we cannot judge a whole year by these early months. We are running into some months which, for reasons I need not go into, are bad ones financially.
I must also remind the House, in fairness to all concerned, that with a turnover of £900 million a year, with which the Coal Board is dealing, a 1 per cent. variation either way can produce £10 million loss or £10 million profit, and no man can possibly estimate halfway through the year anything like as accurately as that. I am giving the best picture that I can, but I must safeguard myself. The point that I am putting is that, as a result of these measures and the co-operation with which they have been carried out and the resulting
830
improvement in output per man shift, so far the year is progressing substantially better than appeared in January and February, when we were facing a really catastrophic situation.
Mr. Harold Davies: The Parliamentary Secretary used some such words as "provided there were no changes in the finances of the Board". Can he give an assurance that if the mining industry wants capital it will still be made available? Secondly, are any of the slight improvements the fruits of developments by the Coal Board over the past few years in winning new seams?
Sir I. Horobin: I shall be dealing with investments but, broadly speaking, this improvement between this year and last year has nothing to do with developments of that kind. One cannot have an improvement so substantial over such a short period other than by people just doing better.
Before I leave the immediate financial position, I must remind the House that the Board started the year with an accumulated deficit of nearly £30 million, and that that has to be repaid. As is pointed out in the Reports which are now before us, it is highly desirable that there should be more self-financing as soon as possible. Therefore, there are, many claims on any improvement in the financial position. But it all comes down to the over-riding question of how far, by pulling together, the industry can improve its productivity. If it cannot do that, it can never "get out of the red", improve the price of coal, or stop the everlasting inroads into its markets by other competing forms of energy.
I ought to make one observation to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It is that the Coal Board is not relying—it would not be fair or reasonable that it should rely—upon increased productivity alone for improving its financial position. I am able to tell the House that several months ago the Board launched an economy campaign throughout the country, with quite specific targets for each division. I have made it my business to inquire periodically how these are going. I am glad to say that, broadly speaking, with improved co-operation, very substantial economies are being made in a mass of small ways which, added together, are achieving very considerable results.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary drew at least a small cheer from the benches opposite when he referred to the £30 million deficit last year [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to break up that £30 million and say how the deficit was accumulated?
Sir I. Horobin: I have quite enough to say to the House and I had better not be diverted into the question of who cheered what. I am hoping to get a few cheers from all parts of the House.
One could say much more about the overall financial position, but I ought to deal now with three specific suggestions which have come along from various quarters at various times. They are all possible additional ways, which ought to be considered, to assist the industry in a position in which, for the first time for many years, the demand for its product is falling.
I do not want to say a great deal about opencast coal, because I have had so much to say about it already. I see present several hon. Members who waded through the Opencast Coal Bill in Committee and they will not be anxious that I should say too much about it now. It has been asked why the Coal Board has not cut back on its production of opencast coal in the situation which I have described. The only point I would put to the House is that we are dealing with a situation in which the Coal Board, facing a very serious financial loss, having to make economies, having to try to reduce its cost of producing coal to meet competition, is asked to do without its cheapest and most profitable source of coal.
The cost of producing opencast coal is less than three-quarters of the average cost of producing deep-mined coal. The profits from opencast coal, about £9 million a year, mean that every miner's weekly wage packet contains 5s. to 6s. out of the profits of opencast mining. In this situation it is difficult to see how the Board can easily give up both its most profitable and its cheapest coal.
Mr. Harold Neal: Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that the Coal Board made its largest profits at a time when it had no responsibility for the production of opencast coal?
Sir I. Horobin: I do not quite see what that has to do with the position now. We are dealing with what the unfortunate Coal Board is to do in a situation in which it might lose its markets because its coal is too dear and, if it is not careful, might make a huge loss, following on accumulated losses, when its statutory obligation is, taking one year with another, to make ends meet.
I am not saying that this is a final, conclusive argument for all eternity, but people ask the Board to do without opencast coal, which makes a £9 million profit that goes into the same "kitty" as that out of which wages are paid. I will not touch the wages question. It is a dangerous and inappropriate subject, but the Coal Board is being asked to find more and if it is asked to give up its cheapest source of profit and its cheapest coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Part of the answer."] That something is only part of the answer can be said of almost any matter.
Mr. Tom Brown: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the reason why the Coal Board continues opencast mining operations is that it is making a profit? Is that his argument?
Sir I. Horobin: That is one reason why, and it seems to me to be a good reason.
Mr. E. Shinwell: This is an important factor. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is not an alternative argument for the support of opencast coal production? Does it not depend entirely on the expectations which the Coal Board and the Ministry of Power have about the future consumption of coal?
Sir I. Horobin: I would not say entirely. That is certainly a consideration and I find myself, not for the first time, in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman.
I shall have to deal at some length with the problem of how to combine getting through 1958 with a loss of demand in a situation when, in a year or so, we shall have a higher demand. But, while I am dealing with the finances of this year, that is the main reason why I think that the Coal Board has been

833
unfairly criticised by those who say there is an easy way out—cut out opencast coal production.
The next point concerns another suggestion, namely, why have not the Government placed restrictions on imports of oil? The simple answer is that British industry as a whole must be as efficient as possible or we all go under. It is impossible for any Government lightly to tell any industry which, in the exercise of its commercial discretion, thinks that the right thing to do is to use one kind of fuel, that it must use another at a time when our competitive position is becoming difficult especially in the export market.
Mr. J. T. Price rose—
Sir I. Horobin: I have given way a great deal. If I give way every minute, we shall never finish.
Mr. Price: I am accepting what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the need for British industry generally to make itself ever more efficient. We all accept that as a policy for the nation, but does not the Minister see the contradiction in his own policy? He is saying, by all means let us have alternative fuel if it leads to greater efficiency; but he has just left an aspect of the subject where we are using labour and capital to extract the least efficient kind of coal from the surface. It is all very well to say at that Box that it is costing only three-quarters as much as deep-mined coal, but will the hon. Gentleman say that it is three-quarters as efficient as deep-mined coal?
Sir I. Horobin: It is the same coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is exactly the same seam, very often. The idea that because men dig it up in a different way it is essentially a different kind of coal, is simply not true.
Now I revert to the question of oil. I have given way a great deal and I must be allowed to pursue a connected argument. I was saying that it is not wise on the part of any Government to lay down in times as competitive as these which fuel any industry should use. The Government must make that decision and stand or fall by it. Further, there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding by some of those who ask for this kind of
834
restriction, about its effect on our balance of payments. It is often claimed—I have seen it claimed recently—that our oil imports constitute a drain on our balance of payments. That is not so. The great bulk of the oil we use in this country is refined here or in the sterling area, and our participation in the international oil industry brings other substantial trade advantages.
I had intended to give a few further figures on that point, but it would keep the House too long in view of the number of times I have given way, so I will leave it at that. However, the House may take it as definite as any figures can be that the Department can give me that net oil imports do not constitute any strain on our balance of payments, and, therefore, the two fuels must be allowed to compete, purely on their merits. That is the Government's firm conviction.
We are often asked: why have not the Government got a fuel policy? Let us consider this. What we are now asked to do, apparently, is to stop the British housewife having the cheap, labour-saving fuel she wants, to compel British industry to burn a fuel it does not want, to blockade ourselves against our own oil to make it easier to blockade ourselves against our own coal. That does not seem to me to be a very attractive proposition.
Now I turn to some facts about the exports and imports of coal. We are frequently told, I think in all good faith, that the Coal Board has had a burden put upon it in relation to imports of coal.
Mr. William Hamilton: Unlike steel.
Mr. Ellis Smith: The best thing that the Minister has said yet.
Sir I. Horobin: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) will like what is coming now, but it happens to be true. In the facts I am giving the House I am not wanting to be controversial. I am trying to give the picture as I see it. Taking the ten years since vesting day, taking the profits that the Coal Board have made from its exports and the loss which has been made from imports of coal, so far from making a loss, it has made a profit of £50 million. So it is wrong to concentrate entirely on one side of the balance sheet.
Mr. William Blyton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?
Sir I. Horobin: Let me at least finish what I am saying on this point.
It has been suggested that of recent years the Coal Board has, as it were, thrown away the export market because it has not exported more and has allowed the Americans to come in. It is indisputable that the Board, in the last two or three years, could not, out of the production of coal, have exported more without producing a coal famine at home, because we just had not got the coal. Yet, in spite of this, it has been suggested that the Board should have gone on doing it at the expense of further imports of coal. I submit to the House that criticism along those lines is, once again, unfair and unrealistic. The only source from which the Board could have got that coal in those days was dollar coal.
In 1955, the Board imported rather over 11 million tons of coal and, as a result, in that year, taking its imports and exports together, it lost over £20 million. I ask the House to consider what would have happened if it had imported still more to export still more. Its loss would have been completely unmanageable. Therefore, it is unfair and unrealistic to criticise the Board for not exporting more coal in recent years. The consequences may, no doubt, be sad. It would have been nice if we had had more coal to export, but we had not got it.
Now I turn from those three suggestions, made as criticisms of the Coal Board, namely, that it ought to cut opencast, that the Minister ought to try to refuse imports of oil, and that we have neglected exports. I turn from those subjects, on which undoubtedly more can and will be said in the course of the debate, to the main drift of what I have to put to the House. In the light of this falling-off of demand, the best estimate—if you like, guess—of what is the probable demand this year, is about 212 million tons.
Mr. Shinwell: Including exports?
Sir I. Horobin: Including exports and bunkers.
It may well be impossible to continue the fall in colliery manpower as at fast
836
a rate as in the past few months, because in some parts of the country—not by any means all—any further fall would lead to a decrease in efficiency rather than an increase in it. Therefore, the thing has to be looked at in a practical way, but a further fall in the present level of manpower, which is about 697,000, towards the planned level given in "Investing in Coal" of 682,000, is almost certainly to be anticipated.
This brings me to the point made by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It may be said, "We may not be satisfied with the answers you have given to these criticisms, but there they are. It may be that the Coal Board and the Minister are working along the lines you have put to us, and are dealing with the situation this year in the only way which is going to lead to some hope of breaking even and meeting the reduced demand. Accepting all that, are you not putting the country in a position that, when demand increases again, it will be completely impossible to meet it?"
I think that that was the point which was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him and the House that it is very much in the minds of the Minister and the Coal Board. I can almost put a figure to it, a figure I have already given—that for 1958 it is about 16 million tons less than the 1956 level. Suppose we have to find that? How are we to do it?
This brings me at once to the very little which I shall have time to say to the House on the subject of stocks. These stocks appear very frightening at first sight, because it is so many years since there have been stocks of coal, but, of course, we must avoid losing a sense of proportion. They are only two or three weeks' production, and, in comparison with a great many industries, two or three weeks' production would not be considered either very much or exceptional, but might be considered a desirable supply. Therefore, I would deprecate any suggestion of panic interference with the investment programme or policy arising out of these present stocks, all of which would certainly vanish very quickly as soon as industry revives, as indeed it will.
I should like to put to the House two much more important considerations, because, while the coal industry, of its nature, tends to be rather inflexible, there

837
are substantial elements of flexibility within the control of the industry itself. I do not pretend that they are the only ones, but, first, there is this one. In the present conditions of demand, it may sound very unrealistic to talk about absenteeism, as it is called, but, when demand does revive, it becomes a very real issue. In fairness to everybody, I must ask the House—and I hope the House will believe that I am trying, in giving these figures, to be fair—to be careful about making comparisons between voluntary absenteeism and total absenteeism. There are a number of statistical pitfalls in these figures, but the best estimate we have been able to obtain, is that, possibly, about 5 per cent. of the present absence figure is avoidable. That 5 per cent. is the equivalent of about 10 million tons of coal.
I can put it in another way. If all the divisions did as well as the best, which is Durham, that would be the equivalent of about 8 million extra tons of coal. The point I am putting to the House is not that, at this time, these figures are really very relevant to our present situation, because we are, as we all know and as I have already described, cutting production to meet the falling off of demand. There is, however, a very relevant point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, and with which I am now dealing. It is whether we could find more coal if and when demand rises, with the smaller manpower which the Board has set to work to achieve in its search for higher productivity.
I can put this aspect of the difference between the best and the average in losses due to absence by an illustration of the different results or perhaps the different atmosphere found in different parts of the country, and this can be found in another statement on page 48 of the Report of the Board. Considerable losses of coal occur from stoppages of various kinds. More stoppages occur and more coal is lost in three divisions—Scotland, North-Eastern and South-Western—than in all the others together. They produce about 40 per cent. of the output, but they account for 87 per cent. of the unofficial strikes and restrictions and 83 per cent. of the total saleable output lost.
Finally, a further improvement in output per manshift would be even more
838
important, because this would not only provide the coal, but, as I have already pointed out, it greatly improves the financial situation of the Board, out of which, whether it is the financing of development, wages or anything else, has to be paid. I am chary of giving this figure, and I must ask the House to treat it with reserve, but I think it is helpful. I have found it helpful myself in learning something about this industry, and I think it may be helpful to the House, bearing in mind what I keep on saying about output per manshift.
If everything else remains the same, and, of course, it never does remain the same, every 1 per cent. improvement in output per manshift will mean about £5 million extra a year to the Coal Board. When we think that output per manshift has increased in a year by as much as 3 per cent. or more, the House can see at once how important this matter of productivity is to all concerned, and how encouraging it is that a substantial improvement in output per manshift has taken place during the last year. The best figures, which are just before Whit-sun, have not yet been heard, but, nevertheless, the improvement is there.
Now I come to the second element of elasticity, and this is relevant to the point about investment which was put to me by the right hon. Member for Easington. It is essential for all of us, in considering this great industry, to have clearly in our minds that it is an illusion to think that investment by itself necessarily produces either greater output or greater productivity. I can illustrate that to the House by the following comparison, which can be obtained, though it is not stated, from the figures in the Reports.
In the first five years of nationalisation, investment in real terms in the coal industry was not very much higher than before the war. It was higher, but not very much, and it was quite insufficient. I am not going into why it was, but merely making a statement of fact. Nevertheless, output and productivity rose rapidly. In the years since 1951, investment has gone up from about £30 million a year to about £100 million a year. Those are much higher figures than have ever been seen in the known history of the industry.
Nevertheless, the improvement one might have expected has been masked.

839
Therefore, I am merely making the point that investment by itself does not necessarily increase either productivity or production. In "Investing in Coal" among the basic figures for 1960 was given the expected output per man year which was 319 tons. In fact, in the main part of the period we are considering, the last few years up to last year, it was falling to under 300 million tons a year and was falling—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three hundred million tons?"] Three hundred tons. I do not think that anyone expects a miner to produce 300 million tons a year. The figure given was 319 tons, but we were getting 300 tons and it was falling.
The point I want to put to the House brings out the significance of that shortfall. The difference between those two figures is the equivalent of 16 million tons of coal a year and that is the equivalent of the coal we were expecting to attain, in fact more, from the whole of the nuclear power programme. I think it extremely important.
I should like the House to bear in mind that there is still, as it were, in the pipeline a very substantial amount of investment which could be coming to fruition in the next few years. If that is no longer masked by other influences, if only those new and improved approaches towards productivity can be added to the improvement which we might hope will come from the investment which has been put in and is annually being put into the industry, I believe that the prospects are by no means so unfavourable as might be expected.
It all depends upon co-operation in improving productivity. No amount of investment in this industry can achieve the results without co-operation by all concerned to improve productivity, to give the increased productivity on which a favourable start has been made. Six months is far too short a period to be sure, but if only what we have done in the last few months can be extended, consolidated and, above all, not thrown away as soon as demand recovers, I think that, for the reasons I have given, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is every reason to believe that the Coal Board could deliver the goods when demand recovers.
I can sum up what I have been saying on this general aspect of the coal industry in this way. In this year there has been
840
a complete change of climate from a desperate search for coal at any price. We have got to what I think is a much more healthy outlook, and the only outlook which holds out any future for the industry. The industry has had a salutary shock and is reacting in a by no means unpromising way. I am sure that we all hope it will go further and do even better.
I turn from problems of overall production and productivity to a specific point which has occupied the Select Committee and Coal Board Reports a great deal. That is the problem of large and small coal. The problem there is that for various reasons, mostly good but some perhaps not so good, the proportion of large coal has been falling steadily year by year. That is a process which has had to be reversed. It is vital that it should be reversed for two reasons. First, decontrol of house coal was impossible without it. No balance could be made of demand and supply of coal while the percentage of large coal was falling year by year.
Secondly, especially at this time, it is to the great financial advantage of all in the coal industry that we should have the basic proportion of large coal because large coal is still more saleable at a good price and small coal is often unsaleable at any price. Therefore, it is to everyone's advantage to have more large coal. The House will be glad to know that the measures, which I need not go into in detail, taken by the Board—changes in deployment, with more careful use of explosives, and so on—have been substantially successful. Not only has the fall been stopped, but there are even some signs that it might—slightly, at any rate—go up. If it can be kept at the present figure of 24 per cent., and certainly if there is not a fall below that, the effect on finances and on the position of sales to the housewife will be secured.
Mr. J. T. Price: This question of small coal is one which is well understood. We understand that the financial position of the Coal Board would be vastly improved if it could get a more reasonable balance between large and small coal. Will the Ministry take heed of the fact that so long as the Board continues to stock vast quantities of opencast coal, as it is doing, that coal will rapidly disintegrate because of its low quality and the Board will be landed with large quantities of small coal?
Sir I. Horobin: I took up this matter with the Coal Board. I do not invent these things out of my head. This is a technical matter on which I must take advice and I am advised that in the proportion of large to small coal as between opencast and deep-mined coal there is nothing in the suggestion. There is really nothing in the theory that if opencast coal is stocked it deteriorates, but other coal does not.
Mr. S. O. Davies: Of course it does.
Sir I. Horobin: The amount of small coal we have to stock depends on how much is produced and how much can be sold. It does not matter whether it comes from opencast or deep-mined coal.
Mr. Davies: Many hon. Members on this side of the House are ex-miners and know about this problem. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in most of the seams worked by the opencast method there is a higher percentage of hydrocarbon in the content of the coal and that that disintegrates—evaporates as it were—when subjected to continuous rain and bad weather?
Sir I. Horobin: I can only give hon. Members the advice I have received on this matter. I am assured by the Coal Board about it and the Board knows its own business. It seems rather odd that hon. Members opposite should take it for granted that the Coal Board does not know the elements of its own business. It may be wrong. My personal view on this matter is valueless and do not put it forward, but the Board must be expected to know its own job. The Board assures me that it is not being so stupid as to try to sell something which will not deteriorate and leave on the ground something which will get worse and worse. I must leave it at that.
So much for the proportions of large and small coal and the successful efforts to prevent any further reduction in large coal production. The Coal Board has also taken another step, and I am glad to say that it has been successful—and I hope that that will not cause any irritation among hon. Members opposite. The Board has used the price system. As the House may recall, some months ago price changes were made to encourage the industry where possible to use less large coal and doubles and more smalls, so as
842
to release large coal for the domestic market and assist the Board in getting rid of some of the smalls.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that large coal users have already substituted other coals at the rate of about ½ million tons of coal a year, while for users of doubles the figure is ¾ million tons of coal a year. What is interesting and encouraging to the industry is that most of the users who have changed have not transferred to other fuels, but have found that they can use small coal.
Here again, the Board has taken practical steps to deal with the situation in which it found itself, and on that basis it has been found possible to achieve some balance in the demand and supply of large coal, and hence to decontrol domestic supplies. At this stage, I must thank the merchants and the local authorities for their co-operation during the period of control.
I am able to inform the House that we can take a slight further step in decontrol. As the House knows, for many years industrial coal has been supplied on an allocation basis. Strictly speaking, that has not been done by Order, although powers under Defence Regulations have been held in reserve. The present allocation runs to the early months of next year, and Her Majesty's Government have decided that no further allocation will be made. Industrial fuel will be decontrolled.
Without going into details, ordinary contracts will be negotiated by the Board on a commercial basis and there will be incentives to users to stock up during the summer and thus assist the Board. This is one small further step in clearing up the clutter and I hope that it will be generally acceptable. I am sure that it will be acceptable to my hon. Friends.
I have kept the House a long time, but I have given way very frequently. I hope that some of what I have said will be helpful. However, before concluding I must refer to some specific recommendations of the Select Committee. We can all agree that the Select Committee is to be congratulated on a fair and objective Report.
It has been suggested that the Coal Board should lay before the House its reply to the Report of the Select Committee. This is a matter upon which it

843
is too early to be dogmatic, and Her Majesty's Government are still considering it. However, as at present advised, they think that that would be a mistake. After all, the Minister of Power is responsible to Parliament for the industry and it is felt that the proper thing to do is for the Government to inform the House of their views and of the views of the Board. It is an arguable proposition, but that is the Government's present view.
With that as a preliminary, I come to some of the main recommendations of the Committee, first, with reference to the "gentlemen's agreement", as it is called. The Select Committee endorsed the Government's view that there is a continuing need for the Board to consult the Government about prices. The only question is that of procedure. The Select Committee felt that it would be better if a specific formal direction about prices were issued to the Board when agreement was not easily obtainable. The Board has told the Minister that although it hopes for eventual freedom from any ministerial control in this matter it favours the Select Committee's proposal.
The Government do not share that view. The Government do not believe that it is possible to conduct great industries like the coal industry except on the basis of constant and confidential consultation between the Board and the Minister. There is a joint responsibility, especially for prices. It is not realistic to suppose that any Government could completely dissociate themselves from the general level of coal prices. It is equally a statutory obligation on the Board so to arrange its affairs that, taking one year with another, it makes ends meet. The Government therefore feel that it is inescapable in this matter that responsibility should be shared, and they feel that to introduce a formal direction would be a very grave step and would hinder the proper relations between the two.
It would have another serious effect. So far in the coal industry, except on certain entirely non-controversial and technical matters, we have avoided all directions. I am advised that throughout the whole range of the nationalised industries there are only two general directions, perhaps not altogether encouraging precedents, one of them being
844
that to the Transport Commission on fares. The House well knows that not a Monday goes by when we do not have a whole stream of suggestions from both sides of the House that the Ministry should issue general directions to a Board on this, that, or the other.
I know that that is a technical device to get the Question past the Table. Nevertheless, we must carefully consider whether we should not be starting on a very slippery slope if we once started to issue directions. In our opinion, that should be avoided at all costs. This is a matter which can be argued, and responsible people take opposite views, but the Government feel that the present arrangement, whereby the Board has the right—which it has exercised on this occasion by putting it in its Annual Report—to ask for a letter which it can publish in a case of disagreement, is the best and that it would be unwise to interfere with it.
The Committee also recommended that the price of coal should be increased to cover the full cost of depreciation on a replacement basis. That is in keeping with the general view of the Board and the Government, but I am sure that the whole House agrees, in the light of what I have said, that any substantial rise in the cost of coal for this purpose would be most ill-advised. Whether we could move in the least for an increase in the depreciation allowed, this is not the time to do it, and it certainly should not be given high priority.
Sir Toby Low: We did not make any such clear recommendation that the price of coal should be increased at once. We had the point which my hon. Friend has just made very much in mind. What we said was that we believed that the aim should be to achieve that in due course. We hoped that the Government would agree with that, and I understand from my hon. Friend that they do. We ought to have the record clear.
Sir I. Horobin: That is precisely what I said. It is very desirable when it can be done, but it should not be attempted now.
The Committee next suggested that the limit given to divisional authorities for capital expenditure should be increased. The Board points out that

845
this is already as high as £250,000 for a single scheme—much higher than in most private industry—and while it is considering the point made by the Committee it has doubts about it at present.
The Committee also recommended that the Board's annual reports should include comparisons of results achieved from its investment with the estimates made. This recommendation is acceptable to the Board. Finally, and perhaps most important, the Committee considered that the Minister of Power should make a greater financial check upon the Board's investment schemes, particularly the marginal ones. The Government feel that the information furnished by the Board is a sufficient check, but they accept the Committee's recommendation and are making arrangements with the Board for action along these lines.
I have covered a great deal of ground. In conclusion, I want to return to some of the more general considerations. I hope that the House will feel that there is hope for the future of this industry, provided we can obtain co-operation in increasing productivity. We have to struggle with facts, and not with one another, and I hope that what I have been able to say will be taken in the spirit that we all wish this industry well. The future of the whole of British industry depends upon the health of the coal industry, and I hope that the debate will at least do something to help and nothing to hinder its development.
4.42 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Robens: When the Parliamentary Secretary rose over an hour ago to address the House he said that he would keep very largely to factual statements. At that stage he probably hoped that he would not have to venture into very many controversial issues. I am afraid, however, that that is precisely what he did. It is not that it matters very much to have controversy in a debate, but if it was his intention to get through that long speech without much controversy, I think that he was disappointed. I am certain that some of my hon. Friends, who gave some indications of impatience as they tried unsuccessfully several times to intervene, will have an opportunity to deal in greater detail with what they intended to deal with by way of a short intervention.
846
I shall not delay the House for too long, because many other hon. Members are anxious to speak. Before turning to my own theme, however, I should like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking far too much for granted on the facts as they are given to him by his Department. It is true that we can take certain statistics and facts and bend them as we want to, but in the light of my long experience in this industry, as a layman and a politician, I should hesitate to draw the conclusions that the hon. Member has drawn from many of the facts, the accuracy of which I would not doubt for one moment.
In respect of opencast coal, for instance, the Parliamentary Secretary should know that in years when there has been a tremendous problem of recruitment into the mining industry—especially in periods of full and sometimes over-full employment—it has been said that the miners' job is always secure, because we have a very big opencast programme which can be reduced if there is depression in the mines, and that is another way of helping to maintain full employment in the mines. It is not a bit of use producing an argument which has never before been used in regard to opencast coal—and which would not have been accepted by the House if it ever had been put forward.
It is not the cost of opencast coal that has been the argument for carrying out these operations; it is not a case of its being cheaper than deep-mined coal. Many hon. Members would say that the devastation, nuisance, annoyance and loss of agricultural land involved in opencast coal mining far outweigh its cheapness, as compared with deep-mined coal. It is only in comparatively recent years that opencast coal has become cheaper than deep-mined coal, in any event. It has never been argued before that we are carrying on with opencast coal mining merely because it is cheaper. We are doing so merely because the country's need for coal is so great.
There is no virtue in ripping out all the easily obtained coal at a time when it is not wanted. It should be kept in reserve until the time comes when it is needed. I would continue opencast coal mining only in order to run out the present contracts. I should like the contracts to thin out a bit in this situation.

847
There is no doubt that within the Parliamentary Secretary's Department there are some highly-skilled people who can be of great assistance in creating increased production together with the minimum delay, inconvenience and capital loss. I therefore say no more about opencast coal mining. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will want to develop this theme. I would merely repeat that the Parliamentary Secretary's approach is a wrong one, and is not borne out by the facts.
The same consideration applies to oil. It is no use suggesting that the increase in the amount of oil used in this country came about because oil has proved to be cheaper and more efficient or better than coal. This sudden increase in the consumption of oil has been largely due to the tremendous pressure which successive Governments have exerted for the greater use of oil and a lesser use of coal.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling)indicated dissent.
Mr. Robens: The Paymaster-General shakes his head, but I will give him the facts in a moment.
The estimates of demand for the future energy requirements of this nation have always shown that there never would be sufficient deep-mined coal. Not only has there been Governmental pressure for the use of oil; the Paymaster-General will no doubt remember that seventeen power stations were, by Government pressure, changed over from coal-burning to oil-burning, or were built to burn both oil and coal. By 1965 it was hoped that the seventeen power stations would take the oil equivalent of about 9 million tons of coal. If that is not pressure to swing from coal to oil, what is? Successive Governments have pressed the industry in this way.
Mr. Maudling: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in recent months our efforts have been to reduce the amount of oil consumed by power stations, subject to limitations of contract. Despite that, consumption of black oil has risen very fast indeed in recent months.
Mr. Robens: Certainly; that is the point. I am not concerned with the last few months. I have said that for years it has been the policy of the Government, the Ministry of Fuel and Power as it then was, and the Ministry of Power now, to
848
push everyone on to oil. That pressure was put on because we never believed that we could get enough deep-mined and opencast coal for our requirements.
If we had maintained the increased industrial production of 3 per cent. per annum we should not have large coal stocks at present; we should be wanting more coal, and probably more oil. I was surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary said that stagnant production had nothing whatever to do with stocks of coal on the ground. It has everything to do with them. In 1955 the index was 137, and in 1956 it was 136. It was down. The following year, 1957, it went to 138. But those figures should have been 137, 140 and 143, if in fact we had been increasing production at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, which is what the Government, through the Leader of the House, suggested was their policy. Then there would not have been stacks of coal on the ground.
I do not want to make this a plain black and white argument. I do not think that problems are solved by suggesting that one is right and the other wrong. I am saying that there is a variety of reasons for the stacks of coal on the ground. Increased use of oil has something to do with the economics of it, but in many cases it is due to convenience. Stagnant production is another reason. The truth is that if British industrial production can begin to make a surge—it may well be, as a result of recent Government action over investment and so on, that such a surge will begin—these stacks of coal will disappear.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that they are nothing to worry about unduly. It is a pity that it is costing such a lot of money for the Coal Board to have to stack this coal, but it is the best way to do it. Perhaps it is a good job that the industry is under public ownership. Otherwise, many miners would be working short-time, because no private owner—and this is not a complaint against private owners—could afford to stack the millions of tons of coal which are being stacked at present and bear that as a cost. Public ownership can and should do it, and the social consequences of mining must always be borne in mind by the Minister when he is dealing with such matters.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman has given reasons for the large stacks of coal but surely he has left out the most important reason—the fact that in every year during the last ten years we have saved increasing tonnages of coal by much greater efficiency in industry, notably the electricity industry. That is the principal reason today for these mounting stacks of coal.
Mr. Robens: I would not say that it was the principal reason. It is another reason. I did not go through the whole list of reasons because I want to deal with other matters; but one could not let the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary pass without drawing attention to some of the fairly obvious inaccuracies in it when the hon. Gentleman was referring to the future of the industry. I am not as happy about it as is the hon. Gentleman.
Coke ovens are likely to use 2 million tons less this year than last year. Railway modernisation will probably result in a reduced consumption by the railways of 1 million tons; and there are other industries, including the brick industry, the cement industry and the paper and similar industries which will use less coal than last year, to the extent, perhaps, of 3 million tons. Therefore, it is no use presenting a rosy picture of the whole industry for the next year. Were I Parliamentary Secretary, I would not dream of doing it. I think that we shall want 7 million fewer tons of coal, or its equivalent, in view of the present economic situation.
It is a good thing that we should face these facts, and it is nothing to worry about. This is not a tremendous percentage of the total coal output, and, by proper management and arrangements, we must be prepared to meet the ebb and flow of fuel requirements. As to the competition between oil and coal, I say that where coal is the natural and economic fuel, it should be used. Where oil is the more natural or economic fuel to use, then that should be used. But I should be against pressing the merits of one or the other on grounds of expediency and I should, of course, be biassed in favour of an indigenous material which we have in large quantities.
850
I wish to voice my appreciation of the efforts of the Select Committee. It has done a first-class job of work. This is the first time we have had a Select Committee's Report on a nationalised industry, and I am bound to say that when the idea of such a Committee was first mooted in this House I was not happy about it. I thought that it might be used as a brake upon the initiative and effectiveness of the nationalised industries; that if the industries felt that at some time they had to answer to a Select Committee for every single day-to-day administrative act which they might perform, they might become disposed to look twice at something when they should take the initiative and be prepared to make a lot of mistakes in order to achieve a great many successes. But, having read the whole of the Select Committee's Report with great care, my views are entirely changed. I was a member of it for a short time, but I asked to be relieved when I realised that the amount of work the members would have to do was far in excess of the time I had available.
Congratulations are due to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. So wisely did he guide the Committee that it produced from the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman of the Coal Board what is the best evidence I have ever seen in relation to the coal industry of this country, and I am thinking of all the Reports which have been issued before. Certainly, that evidence is well worth reading over and over again. I am attracted by a suggestion that it would be well worth while if there were a sort of chairman's report in all our Annual Reports on the lines of this evidence so successfully elucidated by careful questioning and the expert chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North.
I am also interested in the Report which the Committee makes about itself, when it says that this was the first time a Select Committee had had the opportunity of making a major inquiry into a nationalised industry. This Committee had not the advantages of the older Committees of this House. It had no staff. It may well be—I am paraphrasing the words of the Committee—that at some stage it may want to give a

851
report to this House about how to improve its efficiency either by the provision of staff or something of that kind. The Committee states:
"Recommendations to the House on how the Committee's work may be made more effective—whether by the use of special staff, or of different terms of reference or of different powers—would require a special report."
It is to the credit of the Committee, bearing in mind that such bodies usually try to increase their size, that it adds:
"It is too early in the Committee's life to consider such a report."
Nevertheless, I hope that at some stage, when it has had sufficient experience, the Committee will give a special report to this House about the way in which it should operate, and invite this House to give it additional powers, or to make changes which, in the light of this Report, it is felt would make the work of the Committee more effective and of more help to the House.
I remember that when the Paymaster-General told us that the Government had agreed to relieve distributors of all control and that retail distributors would be free, I asked whether that would apply to the Coal Board and the right hon. Gentleman said, "No." He said that the "gentleman's agreement" would still operate. In answer to a further Question from me the right hon. Gentleman said that the reason for that was, as perhaps I had forgotten, that coal was a monopoly. I had not forgotten it, but Question Time in the House of Commons is no occasion to argue these matters.
I would only comment now that perhaps the Paymaster-General has learnt a little from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and that this monopoly is debatable in the House. We could not have had such Questions put about I.C.I. or Unilever, or other big companies which are virtually monopolies, and in any case have many things in common with the people in the same business. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary sitting smug with a smile on his face and pretending that he does not know how big business operates in this country. If the hon. Gentleman does not know, one day we will stage a debate and help to explain it all to him.
I am sorry that the Government have not been prepared to accept the price
852
recommendations. The Committee has done an excellent job in explaining to us all how the "gentlemen's agreement" came about, but I think that what it proposes is healthier for the industry and for the nation. After all, its proposals do not cut the Government out of this matter of public interest. Of course, statutory obligations to safeguard public interest must be shared by the Government of the day. No one would want to contradict that, particularly on questions of price, but in my view this is a healthier way of doing it. In paragraph 89 the Committee states:
"When proposing alterations in coal prices, the Board should consult the Minister of Power as to the public interest but, having done so, should take full responsibility for their price determinations. The Minister should have a statutory power in the national interest to give the Board specific directions in relation to prices. Such a direction should be laid before Parliament and published, so that Parliament and the public would be fully informed about the respective responsibilities of the Minister and the Board in a particular case."
I heard nothing from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon dealing with that point on the basis of argument in the public interest. I think it absolutely sound. Let the National Coal Board be free to fix its prices subject to consultation, and if the Board wants to fix prices which, in the Government's view, are higher than they ought to be, or lower than they ought to be, then let the Government give the Board a direction and place the Statutory Instrument on the Table of the House. They have their automatic majority, and their decision is bound to be accepted. By so doing, it would give the House the opportunity then and there to discuss the price of coal in relation to the national economy, and, indeed, to see whether the public interest was being served.
It does not seem reasonable to say to the National Coal Board "You must, taking one year with another, make your books balance." The very factor that enables the Board to make its books balance, that is, the price at which it sells the only commodity which it has to sell, is not something that we can control in any way. We in this House and the public outside do not know exactly what fight is going on between the Government and the National Coal Board. We do not know whom to blame for what takes place. When, as a consequence, we

853
examine the accounts and are critical about the losses made—the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the £30 million deficit whom are we to blame? Should we blame the Government for preventing the Board obtaining proper prices or should we blame the Board for its inefficiency in not having its prices properly attuned?
I believe that the Select Committee has done a service, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Paymaster-General not to close the door completely but to look at the matter once again in the light of what I hope the Chairman of the Select Committee will be able to say today on some of the recommendations made and in the light of what I have just said. It is an important recommendation and one that the House would, on the whole, welcome.
What we have to determine, because we are, in a way, shareholders in this large enterprise, is whether the Board has done a good or a bad job. We are entitled to criticise the Board or, indeed, to praise it if praise is due. Because it is a State monopoly it is a little difficult to make comparisons, and, of course, it is impossible to make any comparisons within the country.
I think that two things stand out as redounding to the credit of the coal industry. The first is that British industry generally receives supplies of coal cheaper than its European competitors receive theirs from the European minefields. That is something that might be offset against the £30 million deficit of the National Coal Board. British industry, which is very largely dependent on coal, has, in fact, had an advantage over industry on the Continent in this respect. It is an advantage about which I am delighted. I always want to see British coal cheaper than the coal produced by other countries. I want to see nationalisation succeed in that direction. British industry, as I say, has had this advantage, and the National Coal Board has had the disadvantage of being criticised because of the £30 million deficit.
The second thing which is to the credit of the nationalised coal industry is that the output per man shift overall—and the Parliamentary Secretary had something to say about this today—is the highest in Europe. Those two comparisons show that the British coal industry is not as inefficient as many of its critics tend to
854
make out. Those two factors alone are worth recording on the credit side of the balance sheet.
The third factor, which is one that we all accept and want to see improved, is that we have, perhaps, made British mines the safest in the world. That is something which cannot be put into a balance sheet but about which we are very pleased and proud.
I had intended to say something about prices in relation to the national economy, but I think that I must leave that and many other similar things to others. I should have liked very much to deal at some length with the matter of prices in order to show that the allegations that are frequently made to the effect that coal prices are the beginning of the upward spiral in our economy are completely ill-founded and are not borne out by the facts. Perhaps there will be an opportunity at some other time to deal with that.
One of the things, however, that I feel I must deal with is the growing apprehension within the industry of all those who work in it. Indeed, something which the Parliamentary Secretary said today heightens that apprehension. The main apprehension, of course, is caused by the miners themselves seeing stocks of coal on the ground. They see their colliery yards full of railway wagons filled with coal. They see coal having to be taken out of the wagons—a most uneconomic procedure—and dumped in the yard or in a stacking ground nearby in order to provide empty wagons to keep the pit moving. Indeed, if those wagons were not emptied the pits would have to stop production.
This sort of thing, unfortunately, leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the miners because they remember that whenever coal piled up like that before the war the inevitable result was short-time working or unemployment, or both, and, of course, low wage levels. It is most important that the National Coal Board should make absolutely certain that its channels of information to the men it employs are so effective as to remove misapprehensions.
I have attended a number of miners' galas in the last few weeks and have seen crowds of 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 men being addressed by their leaders. I have spoken at many of them,

855
and there is no doubt that the simple fact that it has been made known that some uneconomic pits are to be closed has given rise to much misapprehension. Nevertheless, there are some real fears. I believe that if only the channels of information were efficient those fears would be seen to be groundless.
I heard the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers say that in the whole of the United Kingdom there are only fifteen pits so affected. No one need get worried about fifteen uneconomic pits being closed down under the circumstances of public ownership.
Mr. Thomas Williams: They are small pits.
Mr. Robens: Yes, they are indeed small pits. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they produced only 1 million tons of coal a year.
Under public ownership there is a method by which one can close down a pit. One looks at the social circumstances affected by the closing of the pit. Arrangements can be made for alternative work at other pits and for proper travelling arrangements to be made. No pits are closed down without the closest consultation with the men working in them and with their leaders. Therefore, it is far better to be perfectly plain about it and to say that some pits are to be closed, which ones they are, and what steps are being taken to deal with the problems arising from their closure.
Not sufficient information of this kind is passed down to the men who work in the industry. When one speaks of closing down a pit it may well be that the men in that pit know that it is their pit which will be affected, but it is important that all other miners should also know, because unless they are told they are left wondering whether they will be affected. I am perfectly certain that the sight of large stocks of coal on the ground and apprehensions about pits closing are the main reasons for absenteeism and small attendance on Mondays in the pits. I suggest, therefore, that the National Coal Board should look once again at its system of passing on information to the men whom it employs.
Another factor causing concern is the increased use of oil. The information that we had some time ago showed that by 1965 the fuel requirements will be equivalent to about 310 million tons of
856
coal. Obviously that position will not be reached yet. We shall not reach that position until the latter part of 1969 or 1970. Let us assume that the figure is reached not in 1965 but four or five years later. What are our coal requirements likely to be?
If we take atomic energy as equivalent to 18 million tons of coal, and we double the present oil supply—no mean feat in that short time—to the equivalent of about 78 million tons of coal, the coal requirements, even on that basis, will be 214 million tons. Therefore, the necessity for the coal industry to be the basis upon which our fuel and energy programme exists will remain firm. These facts ought to be known to everybody in the coal industry.
Mr. James Callaghan: What about Iraq?
Mr. Robens: My hon. Friend at one time took a good deal of interest in oil; he is perfectly correct. Would anybody in this House seriously consider placing the whole of the fuel and energy programme upon the basis of oil from the Middle East either now or in the future? Is it wise or clever?
I am not concerning myself with current problems but with the fact that supplies of oil can be interfered with very quickly and far more quickly than coal. The oil supplies that can be kept in this country are very small. Let there be an interruption of oil supplies for a few weeks and the section of British industry which is dependent upon oil would slowly come to a standstill. I am not sure whether the Government would not like to take another look at the expansion of the oil-fuel programme, in view of the fact that in the next decade there will be uncertainty in the Middle East with a consequent possibility of interruption of our oil supplies.
In that case, and if the oil supply is not doubled within the period that I have mentioned, the demand for coal will be even greater than it is now. The present situation is just a passing phase. The State-owned industry will take care of the difficulty through which we are passing. We should go on recruiting young people, putting our investment into mining and making British mines technically the most efficient in the world. We should go on improving our management and should always try firmly to

857
convince people that the industrial prosperity of the country still rests on coal. We should make coal the basis of our fuel and energy programme.
Another very important question is that of exports. I am not happy about what the Parliamentary Secretary said today upon the subject or what he said previously in answer to a Question. I am most unhappy at the reply he gave when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) raised the question of exports in the Adjournment debate the other night. The Government are far too complacent about it. It is a great mistake to be so, and I want to give a couple of illustrations to show what is in my mind.
Several months ago I asked the Government to give a further assurance to our prospective customers abroad that we would reserve for them at least 10 million tons a year in exports from this country. That is little enough. It would be a terrible mistake for the British coal market abroad to be lost to us for the sake only of reserving 10 million tons per year. It may be that we shall need to import and export coal at the same time, but it is worth it. Coal is not a uniform commodity. There are 100 different varieties. It may be that we have to import large coal in order to export other qualities of coal. We might be very glad if we had 10 million tons tied up in this manner. Let us not worry about it; the thing is quite justifiable. We import plenty of steel while we make plenty of steel. We import plenty of other commodities which we manufacture. I would not make coal an exception but I would make certain that I got back some of those exports to a minimum of 10 million tons of coal per year.
I want to give two illustrations which I think are important. Take the European Coal and Steel Community, with which this country has a special treaty of association. The Community has its own funds, but there is a comparatively dead market for the Community's producers. I should not be a bit surprised, watching what is happening there, if in a comparatively short period some central control were exercised to ensure that the High Authority sets the whole atmosphere for import purchases by the six countries in
858
the Community from the outside sources, America, Poland, and the United Kingdom.
This is a very important matter. There are six customers who are likely to become one customer on behalf of the six. The pattern of investment will change in accordance with the policy that the Community cares to adopt. If the Community turns to the United Kingdom for supplies to Europe, it will have to remember that coal exports and imports to Europe can go in small parcels to a variety of small ports. If the Community decides to take large quantities from the United States, it will have very big cargoes in large parcels which will have to come into a limited number of large ports.
There will have to be a new network for the import of large quantities of American coal, and it will want a good deal of investment. Smaller ports, which are no longer taking British supplies, are going out, and the larger ports will be on a permanent basis, with increased import facilities. Before that investment is undertaken, it is highly important that we get our customers back in Europe and that we maintain a network of distribution such as we have at the present time. Once the European Community has in its mind that the United Kingdom is no longer a source of imports of coal in anything like substantial quantity, we shall have very great difficulty indeed in keeping our customers on the other side of the Channel.
It will not be a question of a three, five or ten-year contract, once the Community invests in those directions. The Community will want permanent arrangements under which it will be able to see that it can get coal from the United Kingdom in the quantity and the qualities that it wants. We must seek to give it the assurance before any changes are made, and before the big change is made to take continued imports of American coal, to the detriment of the British coal industry.
My other illustration is Denmark. The association between this country and Denmark is of the closest and has been for very many years. The Danish electricity works, which are traditionally very large customers of British coal—they are not getting it now, but their minimum potential requirements are about 2 million tons a year and probably more—

859
find that our steam-raising smalls are the kind of coal they want. Not having been able to get them, they have turned—this is a big Danish investment—to mining, by opencast methods in many cases, Danish brown coal.
I suppose that the mining of brown coal in Denmark is as distasteful as opencast mining in this country for the people in the area. The Danes do not like it. Nevertheless, these operations—this happened very largely after Suez because the Danes were apprehensive about their fuel supplies—have received a good deal of investment. If we are to get the Danes to give up that investment in brown coal, and I think they will be prepared to do so because they do not particularly like it, British coal will for a period of time have to be sold at a price which will enable the Danes to do that.
I would not suggest that normally coal should be sold under production costs. I would not for a moment suggest that we should try to compete with the Polish dumped coal which can be obtained all over Europe at well below the cost of production. However, when we consider that we are paying 13s. 6d. a ton for putting coal into stock and picking it out again, it would not be a bad thing to sell ii at 10s. a ton less than the cost of production and thus save ourselves 3s. 6d. a ton, thereby getting back the market in Denmark so that our coal takes the place of Danish brown coal.
These are illustrative of what I have in mind when I am talking about exports. I believe that I carry the whole of this side of the House and probably many hon. Members opposite with me when I say that coal exports are very important not only to this country but to the coal industry as well. We must make an effort to get back some of our traditional markets so that we have a guarantee that there is an outlet for British coals.
I end as I began by saying that the splendid Report of the Select Committee has been very helpful. All of us who have read it have appreciated the wealth of information in it. It will make the debate on the Report of the National Coal Board much more attractive than it would have been.
5.23 p.m.
Colonel C. G. Lancaster: The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) made considerable references to
860
the problem of the export market. I think he will find that he has a considerable body of hon. Members on this side of the House on his side in this matter. I shall deal with that later, but meanwhile I should like to refer to his very generous remarks about the Select Committee on which I had the honour to serve. I echo the congratulations offered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) upon the excellent chairmanship which he displayed during the Committee's work.
I offer a word of congratulation also to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary upon what must have been his first major speech from the Dispatch Box. Whether or not we agreed with everything he said, it will be agreed that he spoke lucidly and factually on what is a very large and, inevitably, a very controversial subject. He ended by saying that our struggle is with facts and not with each other. We must, however, state facts, for only if we state things clearly and objectively can we find the answer to so many of the problems with which the industry is confronted.
Ever since 1951, which was the high-water mark year in deep-mine production, there has been a steady, if gradual, decline of slightly over 4 million tons. During that period there have been ups and downs in the number of men employed, but by 1957 we were back at a figure of 710,000 men against the 715,000 in 1951. We now know that during that period there had been a net saving of 18,000–20,000 men on the surface, very much to the credit of the National Coal Board, whose various schemes of improvement in surface lay-out had materialised. But that gave a net gain underground. Although we must set off against that net gain the extra week's holiday, the higher age of boy entrants and the additional number of technicians required, I do not think a very strong case can be made out for a shortage of underground manpower.
If the Select Committee did nothing else—and I think it did a great deal—it swept away many misconceptions which have bedevilled a great many of our debates in recent years. We are mining coal at exactly the same depth as a generation ago. It is about the same distance from the pit bottom, taking one year with another, and within a framework of 52 in. we have lost only 2 in.

861
in the thickness of the coal seams that we are mining. That means that something is wrong with the coal industry. We have reached virtual stagnation in our production despite an immense expenditure of money and very real advances in technology. I shall deal with that later, but it must be the background to our thoughts when we are considering the problems of the industry.
I turn to one or two things said by the Parliamentary Secretary about the present situation, about which he spoke with some restrained optimism. In 1957 we were going through a transitional period of change-over from a sellers' market to a buyers' market. For seventeen years we had enjoyed a sellers' market where production was paramount. Then we came, inevitably, to a very difficult period, that of change-over from the paramountcy of production to the necessity to recognise that costs must be paramount and that in the last resort the customer will decide the ultimate issue. It throws a great strain on the National Coal Board and on management. It is easy enough to boost production but it is extremely difficult to level out costs or to make improvements within them.
That brings me to the question of small coal and the stocks, about which we have heard a lot today. I know that we have no occasion to be unduly worried about the size of our stocks, although they are larger than we wish to see, but I think we should be unwise if we did not recognise that the process of degradation and oxidation means that these stocks, after a period of twelve months—and a great many of them have been there for twelve months—fall sharply in calorific value and that there will come a time when the National Coal Board will have to write down their value in its books.
I also believe that, keen as we always are on seeing an expansion of our export market, we must be realistic in the value of these stocks. We may say that we do not wish to see coal sold below the cost of production and at the cost of sweat and toil, but that will not sell the coal for us. We may well have to accept quite drastic writing down, both in the value of these stocks and in the value at which they may break their way into our traditional European market.
862
As to the small coals themselves, I think it was inevitable that, with the advance of power loading, which now represents about 50 million tons a year, and with the intensification of mechanization, there was bound to be a greater proportion of small coals than hitherto. It is not unreasonable to be a little critical of the fact that perhaps not enough foresight was given to that situation.
These small coals are being produced, and although we have spent considerable sums of money on experimenting with briquetting and other methods, we have not made very large advances, and hardly anything has been done about low temperature carbonisation, which is another means of dealing with the problem. We must hurry up our researches into both those processes as well as recognising that considerable effort must be made, as the right hon. Member for Blyth said, to re-enter our traditional European markets. The power station section of them, on the European seaboard, were the traditional markets for these unwashed small coals.
Turning to a more optimistic picture, there is no doubt that we are making considerable strides in technology. The Coal Board and the Ministry are to be congratulated on the various developments which they have been making. Their most recent experiments are in the use of hydraulics underground, which has, I think, probably a limited application. The Board is now experimenting with a machine called the Goodman Continuous Loader, which I think is the logical development of the American Joy Loader, with which we started our original experiments in power loading in this country in 1944. I have always regretted that we did not continue with the experiments then carried out. They were in board and pillar work. Since then we have gone over to power loading on our traditional longwall faces. Certainly our experiences, and subsequently those of the National Coal Board, with the board and pillar work were that it had a very high initial cost, but when it came to the final result it turned out to be a very worthwhile method of dealing with this problem. Indeed, despite the fears at one time expressed, we found that we had almost total extraction. I very much hope that this Goodman Continuous Loader may be tried out in those conditions.

863
The main part of my remarks arises out of much of the work which we did in the Select Committee. One thing which was borne in on my mind and, I imagine, on the minds of all in the Committee, was the vast scope and extent of the problems with which the National Coal Board is confronted. Let us be quite objective about the National Coal Board. It consists of very ordinary men. They are not supermen; they are ordinary men doing a job to the best of their abilities, often under very difficult circumstances. They are not men of vast industrial experience, nor would they claim to be, yet week after week and day by day they are confronted by a wide variety of difficult problems from a variegated industry.
We expect them, together with the part-time members of the Board, who are trained industrialists, to be able not only to solve those very intricate problems and to give sensible and reasonably quick decisions on a whole host and variety of questions, but also to be the functional heads of the biggest industrial empire in the world. I do not think that it is either reasonable or practical that they should be expected to do that.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) were in his place, because if he were not the architect, he was at any rate the standard bearer of the scheme originally introduced for the conduct of this industry. I do not think I am putting words into his mouth when I say that he is much too wise and experienced a man to say that he is satisfied with the present situation in the coal industry. I am sure that he is not, and I believe quite firmly that he feels that it should be thought about again. When he says that, I am sure that he is right. We need to think about it again, and we on these benches must take our share of the blame in being hesitant so long.
We have in the Ministry today men who I think have both the imagination and the courage to do so, and I hope that it is not long before we find that they have not only embarked on the solution to this problem but that we may become aware of their intention to solve it.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Alan Fitch: I should like to crave the indulgence of the House on
864
this occasion, it being the first time that I have been privileged to address the House. I am very happy to be the Member for Wigan, a town whose history can be traced back to the twelfth century. In fact, the Charter of 1199 first mentions the name of Wigan, spelled then as it is spelled now—a town, I believe, of Saxon origin. In the Charter of 1662 authority was given to the borough to use the motto "Ancient and Loyal", and from that day onwards Wigan has been known as the ancient and loyal Borough of Wigan.
The people of Wigan, known affectionately as Wiganers, are a happy, kindly people, tolerant but yet outspoken. I have always found it very difficult to understand why third-rate comedians find so much material from Wigan when they are on the stage. As Englishmen, we have a sense of humour, and I believe that our sense of humour and our ability to laugh at ourselves is one of our greatest national assets. I hope that in some small degree I share that asset, but the type of humour which these third-rate comedians turn out bears no relation whatever to the type of people who live in Wigan or to the structure of the town.
Poverty, so vividly described in George Orwell's book, The Road to Wigan Pier, has, I am glad to say, disappeared, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not want it to reappear. Wigan has been associated with coal for very many generations, but it may interest hon. Members to know that very little coal is being produced in the Borough of Wigan now. Unfortunately, Wigan, so far as coal production is concerned, is a dying area. Many of the inhabitants are in coal mining, but are outside the area, such as in the neighbourhoods of Manchester and St. Helens. Wigan has a very fine mining college and attracts students from all over the world.
I should now like to make two observations on Volume 1 of the National Coal Board's Report. Paragraph 233, on page 47, reads:
"There are good reasons why absence rates may be higher in mining than in some other industries."
Until nine weeks ago, I was an underground mineworker. During the latter half of 1957 we had, as we have had

865
periodically since nationalisation, attacks on the miners about the problem of absenteeism. I do not want to be controversial. I wish to uphold the traditions of a maiden speech, but the miners resent being singled out for special attention and publicity in this matter. We on this side of the House cannot, of course, condone habitual absenteeism; we never have done.
I should like to describe an experiment which we carried out in a Lancashire coalfield and which may have been tried in other coalfields. We set up committees, called attendance committees, consisting of an equal number of representatives from the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The purpose of these committees was not to discipline men, except in the last resort, but to try to find oat exactly why a man was habitually and consistently off work. We considered whether this was due to domestic or personal reasons, because they play a part in a man's employment.
What happened? Unfortunately, these committees were killed largely by the undesirable publicity which they received from the Press. When captions such as, "Lazy miners to be sacked", or, in one case, "Four lazy miners to be sacked" appeared in the Press, immediately the traditional loyalty of the miner was aroused for his fellow worker, and it became impossible to work these committees. When they could work in an unobtrusive way and without publicity, they did a great deal of good work. The mineworkers' leaders in Lancashire should be congratulated on their courage in facing up to this problem. This was to a certain extent an effort in the art of self-criticism, which, I think hon. Members will agree, is the highest form of criticism. I only hope that when people criticise the mineworkers, as they do, they will sometimes apply the same tests to themselves.
I should like to say a word or two about absenteeism in general. It is recognised that mining is a difficult and unhealthy job. Therefore, in a job of that nature there is bound to be a certain amount of absenteeism. A man must present himself at the pithead in time to go down at the last winding. If he is a minute late he loses a day's work. That does not appertain in other industries. Even though a person is late, perhaps by a quarter of an hour or half an hour, he
866
can do some work during the day. That factor again contributes to a higher rate of absenteeism.
I now turn to the question of the ever widening gap between wages and sickness pay, which is relatively wider today than it was before the war. If I may speak from personal experience, while I was down the pit there were some men, not many, many of them middle-aged low-paid workers, who would take a couple of days off rather than go to the doctor because he might sign them off for a week or a month, which they could not afford. That is another reason which has contributed to voluntary absenteeism.
I have with me a cutting from the Observer which I should like to quote. The Observer is a newspaper for which I have a great affection. I believe that it is a paper that contains exceedingly good, clear and original articles. But I can hardly agree with this comment in it:
"One of the few attractions of being a miner is that it is possible to earn good money without too regular attendance, so that the job likely more and more to attract men of a particular type and personality—just as teaching attracts people who like long holidays, and the Civil Service people who like security."
It is not my intention to bring discord into the debate in discussing the relative merits of why people go into teaching or the Civil Service. But if it is not unparliamentary language, it is sheer tripe to say that men go into mining because they want to indulge in absenteeism. If that were true, when the Coal Board advertises for new recruits it should also advertise not only a good pension scheme and holidays with pay, but plenty of absenteeism thrown in.
I should now like to turn to page 49 of the Report, which deals with welfare. The Board has done a great deal in this direction. I am particularly interested in this matter because I was the vice-chairman of the colliery canteen and baths committee. The Board's job in the matter of human relations has two aspects. First, it has to raise the economic position of the miner, which it has done, and, secondly, to raise his social status. It has tried to do this by providing baths and canteens.
We know that we are faced with competition from the new form of fuel from atomic energy. We shall not approach

867
this matter with the mentality of a Luddite. We shall approach it in the proper way. Coal has been the basis of this country's prosperity for many generations. I believe that the ingenuity of our scientists and technicians can find fresh use for this wonderful commodity and mineral. The Coal Board may have organisational and structural defects, but it has given the mineworker a sense of security and justice that he has not known before.
5.48 p.m.
Sir Peter Roberts: First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on his maiden speech. If he felt anything like I felt on making my maiden speech, he will be glad that he has got it over; and, if I am not being presumptuous, he got it over extremely well. We detected a sense of humour in his speech, and we look forward to hearing from him again in the future. At the same time, we could not help thinking of his predecessor, Mr. Ronald Williams, whose tragic death I am sure made us all very sad. Nevertheless, in the hon. Member for Wigan we have someone who is obviously very conversant with the coal mining industry to join a large number of hon. Members opposite and, possibly, on this side who are experts, although not from the practical angle, in this great industry. I hope we shall have the opportunity of hearing more from the hon. Member.
I now turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I should like to congratulate him on his statement about the allocation of industrial coal. I have thought for a long time that a large number of people were employed in this section of his Ministry who might well be replaced, and I think that the action which he has taken is a good one.
I should also like to congratulate him on his stand against a good deal of criticism about opencast working. It appeared from the speech of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that much of the criticism of opencast coal working comes from the fear of unemployment in the coal mining industry. If that is so, I think that it is misplaced and unfortunate. In my view, we shall need opencast mining for a long time, and I do not think that the mineworker
868
need be frightened that it will put him out of a job.
The third point which I want to stress is the question of exports. Whatever may happen with opencast mining and the question of supplies, I am satisfied that over the years there will always be a demand for this coal on the Continent.
In paragraph 129 of its Report, the Select Committee, on the subject of coal export, said:
"Despite the generally gloomy situation, the Board see no reason to change the long-term export plans that they made in 1955."
The conclusions reached by the Select Committee did not deal specifically with that point. We have heard something about the 1955 policy. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, the coal simply was not available and it would have been uneconomical to import coal for the purposes of export. That may be true, and I am not arguing the point now. What I am arguing is that the position has radically changed. If the Board takes the view that it has still to work on the 1955 policy concerning exports, my view is that it is wrong.
Let me remind the House of some of the figures which have already been quoted concerning coal stocks. For the moment, I refer only to undistributed stocks. A year ago, they were in the neighbourhood of 6 million tons, and today they are in the region of 11 million tons. Hon. and right hon. Members who have discussed this aspect have suggested that that is not a high figure. If, however, one considers the cost of financing the extra 5 million tons over last year at a 5 per cent. rate of interest, I calculate that it is costing the Coal Board some £3 million, which either reduces its profit or increases its losses. If we assess the deterioration in the coal at the same time even as low as 10s, a ton, we arrive at an additional £3 million. This is something which the House should take seriously.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said also that the surplus represents only two weeks' production. If one considers the whole of the stocks in industry, both distributed and undistributed, I calculate them as being something over five weeks' stocks.
Mr. Nabarro: Six weeks.
Sir P. Roberts: If any industrialist had six weeks' stock of his total production in the yard, he would be extremely worried. I am worried too.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made another statement in trying to paint too rosy a picture. He said that production was not falling. That may be true of the general trend, but let us consider more specifically the type of industry which is the main purchaser and consumer of coal. In this way, we find a different picture. As far as I can see from a good deal of research, the production of the main consumers of coal is falling. Stocks in the steel industry are at the moment roughly the same as they were a year ago at about 1,400,000 tons. Comparing May this year with May, 1957, however, and applying the figures for those weeks on an annual basis, there appears to be a fall of 3 million tons in the production of crude steel. That is a great amount.
Mr. Callaghan: What percentage is that?
Sir P. Roberts: Of something like 21 million tons, it is one-seventh. That is an industry which is a very large buyer of coal. Making a similar comparison in the case of iron ore, there is a drop in production of something like 3½ million tons. The right hon. Member for Blyth has already spoken of the change-over to oil by the railways. On the whole, therefore, I feel that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is far too optimistic and complacent when he seems to think that everything will be all right because production is going up.
When we come to the position in the autumn, with coal stocks 5 million tons higher than last year, with crude steel production down 3 million tons and iron ore down by 3½ millions tons, when we look to the forward position in the iron foundry industry, which is going on short time, in shipbuilding, which is in difficulty already, and in the refractory industry, which is already on short time, I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right in suggesting that the sale of coal will become easier in the autumn.
Sir I. Horobin: My hon. Friend must not inadvertently put words into my mouth. What I was arguing was that over the years that we were discussing production had not, in fact, fallen and that another reason must be found for
870
the fall in the demand for coal, which was largely the transfer to oil. I never said that I did not think that the situation in the autumn would not require a very active sales policy by the Board. I think that it will.
Sir P. Roberts: I am delighted to hear that. It was not quite my recollection of that passage of my hon. Friend's speech, but I will look it up tomorrow.
I wish now to deal with the Ministry's reaction to the selling of exports of coal in the autumn. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave us his views. Governmental statements usually seem to stress the vital need of exports. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech of this kind only a week ago, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stressed the same theme. At the Ministry of Power, however, we find a strange reluctance to face these facts.
If we refer to page 31 of its Report, we find that the Coal Board deals with this aspect merely by saying that there were a few extra tonnages in 1957. In the debate on 14th May this year, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"Without increased production"—
that is, of coal—
"unless and until home consumption unhappily falls off, there just is not a margin for net exports."
I cannot see how my hon. Friend reconciles that with the facts and figures which we are discussing today. In that debate, I pressed upon him certain suggestions for dealing with this matter. Some of them have already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Blyth this afternoon. They were, I thought, reasonably sensible suggestions. One was that we should make long-term contracts abroad; a second was that we should have flexible prices; and a third was that we should have some form of guarantee of quality.
What did my hon. Friend say to that? In that debate on 14th May, he said:
"Unless production increases, and unless we can be sure that it will increase over a series of years ahead, it is quite impossible, it would be almost dishonest, for the Government or the Coal Board to make the kind of statement for which my hon. Friend asks …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 581–2.]
I regarded the use of the word "dishonest" as somewhat unkind. Leaving that out of account, however, those

871
are the sort of arguments which have been pressed upon my hon. Friend from both sides of the House today, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General winds up the debate we shall have a more satisfactory reply.
When we are faced with the position in heavy industry as we see it at the moment—and heavy industry generally takes a much longer time to pick up following the financial restrictions which are imposed upon it by the Treasury; the present relaxation of credit will not bring about any quick production this autumn—I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary must take a more realistic view of the future. He cannot merely sit back and wait for a boom to get him out of the present difficulty. If he does that he will be adopting the attitude of the ostrich, and if the boom does not come he will have a good deal of responsibility for increased coal stocks if they occur.
I am not blaming only the Parliamentary Secretary for this attitude of mind, because I think it permeates the Ministry of Power quite a long way. The reason I say this is that a speech was made by the present Minister of Supply in 1955 just before he became Minister of Fuel and Power. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Supply, talking again about exports, said:
"There has been talk this afternoon of exports. There was a word which the Minister used"—
the present Minister of Education—
"which filled my mind with doubt. It was the word 'reluctantly'. He said 'We acquiesce reluctantly in restriction of exports'. In the years past we have gone on exporting in the expectation that some day output would suffice to cover both exports and home requirements. The expectation has been falsified."
He went on to say:
"… the industry has been the prisoner…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 415.]
of this idea of exporting. He then became the Minister of Fuel and Power, and practically from that moment exports from this country were severely curtailed.
Unless this situation can be rectified quickly, I believe we shall get into a position, as the right hon. Member for Blyth said, whereby we shall not be able to get back into traditional markets on the Continent.
872
It is important that we should appreciate fully what is the position on the Continent. The overall demand from the Continent for the next year, according to the best figures I can get, is something in the neighbourhood of 29 million tons, some of it large coal, some of it coking coal, and some of it small steam-raising coal.
The average orders from the U.S.A. for 1958, which we are now in, is 25 million tons. In other words, the American market is pushing on to the Continent anything from 25 million to 27 million tons a year. Our traditional exports to these small ports which the right hon. Gentleman was talking about have fallen off practically to nothing.
I make a confession to the House which, possibly, I might not have done some years ago because of the political approach that there was to this problem. I was managing director of a coal mine before vesting date, and I therefore had some experience in the form of selling coal. It was very necessary for me to have my finger on the pulse. In those days, leaving out politics altogether, it was vital to keep export markets even though they might be at a lower price. Time and time again, we took long-term contracts slightly below the market price, and in a year or two we were extremely glad that we had done so. That was the form of ordinary business.
Mr. Shinwell: What about miners' wages?
Sir P. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman asks about miners' wages. The very fact that we insisted on certain longterm contracts abroad enabled us to keep mineworkers at work in the colliery when other collieries, because they did not have export orders, were on short time.
Mr. Shinwell: Three days' work and three days a week on the dole.
Sir P. Roberts: I was talking about the necessity of keeping people at work by taking long-term export orders. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see the point, I cannot help him.
Mr. Nabarro: This is an interesting argument, which I hope to continue later on. Would my hon. Friend tell the House what are the implications of what he is now recommending? Is it not a fact

873
that if we sell coal in Europe below cost, as the National Coal Board has a statutory responsibility to pay its way, taking year with year, it would be necessary to put up the home cost of coal to offset the losses on exports? Would that not be highly inflationary?
Sir P. Roberts: No. I shall deal with that point at the end of my speech. I should like to build up to that final point. I do not believe it is necessary to put up home prices to cover exports at the present time if we are to be faced, as I believe we are, with a general drop in prices over the past. We have coal in stock at certain prices, and if we do not reduce our price of selling it, so far as I can see it remains there for ever. No doubt we shall hear more about that later on.
Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
Sir P. Roberts: The situation with regard to prices—I will deal with it now as my hon. Friend has interrupted—is that we have this screening which we have heard a good deal about. I am not talking about the past but about the future. The export business is one which fluctuates up and down. One does not always get in at the top; one has to take the average. Over the last seven or eight years, the National Coal Board has been on a good wicket. It has sold at very high prices and made a premium over the last ten years of between £70 million and £100 million in selling coal abroad at a higher price than it would have sold it at home. That is something that should be kept in mind in the export field. We have that premium, and over the years we could have levelled out a selling policy. Then, of course, the National Coal Board cut off exports altogether in 1956. The result is that the Continental importers quite frankly did not trust the policy of the Government or the desire of the Coal Board to substantiate long-term contracts.
The impression which the Minister has given at the moment is that it is no good exporters abroad looking to Great Britain, because we just will not have the coal. If I am right in thinking that that is the kind of impression he has given, I believe that something should be done today to rectify it. I hope that the Paymaster-General will be able to give
874
some confidence to those people who want to buy United Kingdom coal in the future that the coal will be there to sell to them.
If by any chance the Parliamentary Secretary were to say, "We may want the coal ourselves," I would point out that at the present moment we are selling coal at a ridiculously low price, far below the price at which we can produce now. Some of our statesmen go across to the Continent and talk about a Free Trade Area and liberation of trade; yet the Minister of Power looks askance at any suggestion of importing cheap Polish coal below the cost of production in order to cover the sale, very likely at higher prices, of British coal to the Continent. That is an argument which one can take up at another time.
All I am saying today is that every endeavour should appear to be taken by the Minister and by the National Coal Board to recover these traditional British markets on the Continent. I hope that they will come before the falling off of opencast mining.
I now come to the question of policy. We have had over the last year a series of Ministers of Fuel and Power or Ministers of Power and the problem of controlling the export trade from the political point of view. Let us face it that there is a political content now, whether we like it or not, because we have a nationalised industry, a Coal and Steel Community on the Continent, and more and more industrial control by the Government. I believe there is some idea that the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low), or some other Committee on coal, should keep a watch on export policy and that hon. Members on both sides of the House might sit under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Power in order to see that we have some sort of continuity of sale for our export trade. The chopping and changing of policy that we have seen over the last five years is doing us no good at all.
I come to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) raised of finance. I have mentioned the premium, the argument for an exports pool into which premiums when they occur are put to set off against losses when they occur. In

875
an enormous industry like the coal industry, the balance is struck over a large number of years, or should be, but we are faced with the problem that the Coal Board has to make a balance of one year with another.
I remember how this was argued with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. E. Shinwell) years ago when we were in Committee on the nationalisation Measure. We had many arguments about whether or not the Coal Board should have to balance its books by the end of each year. The arguments were carried on in the Standing Committee and in the House as to how this should be done, and the right hon. Gentleman came down in favour of a balance one year with another because it was felt that by economic necessity some form of control over efficiency would thus be arrived at. There is a balance of argument about that, but I feel that we should have some flexibility in this type of industry and that we should not have to try to balance one year with another, even if one year is extremely good for exports and another is extremely bad for exports.
Mr. Shinwell: It did not mean successive years. It did not mean that a deficit in one year had to be made up the following year. We had in mind a period of some years.
Sir P. Roberts: That is interesting. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to develop that. My understanding of the matter is that legally the Board must balance one year with another. I do not know if one is to assume that it means that we can jump some years between one critical year, good or bad, and another critical year, good or bad—
Mr. Shinwell: Up to a point.
Sir P. Roberts: I think the right hon. Gentleman is on my side, if that is the conclusion. So far so good.
We have applied this to the railways. The railways have to balance their books over a number of years. The same practice should be applied to the coal industry.
I hope we have a definite policy over the next two years to get back the export markets we have lost, and my answer to
876
my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster is that to achieve that we are prepared, I hope, to say that if there is a loss in one year we must not necessarily bring about a balance the year after. I am not prepared to accept the one year with another argument, and I understand now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington does not accept it either.
Mr. Nabarro: Do I interpret my hon. Friend correctly when I say that what he is really telling the House is that he recommends a subvention by the Government to finance perpetual losses?
Sir P. Roberts: I think that that is a considerable travesty to put up. However, I will leave it at that.
I believe that the position in the autumn will be difficult for the Coal Board. Steps should have been taken to get our export market back as long ago as June of last year, when certain of us did utter warning statements. We have now a very much longer and more difficult road to travel, but it will pay us—and when I say pay "us" I mean pay the Coal Board, pay the country—to go into the export market now even if it means selling coal at slightly less than the cost of production, the cost at which the coal was put in stock.
First of all, we should attack the traditional export markets on the northern coast of Europe, the markets for deep-mined coal for power stations. That brings me to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth and Governmental action. The Government might help in Denmark and Finland. The Finns have cut British coal exports which could very well be resuscitated. Then there is Italy. The Italians have imposed a 10 per cent. barrier against coke going in from this country. There are many things which the Government can do if they want to.
What, above all, they can do is to reinject confidence in those people who want to buy British coal, confidence to enter into arrangements with the Coal Board, confidence that, if they do so, they will get the sort of coal they want and get it over a number of years.
I do not like this idea of restriction of which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. I think he said he was glad at the restriction on production. I will

877
study carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow what he said, but the impression I got was that he was rather glad there was this restriction because it was more economic. That is not the policy of the Conservative Party. We are expansionists. We must go on expanding production in this industry for the market at home and abroad, and I sincerely hope that the Paymaster-General will be able tonight to give a more encouraging reply to the House than any which the Parliamentary Secretary has given us in the last month.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. David Griffiths: I have tried as diligently as possible to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). It has been only with the greatest difficulty that I have followed him. I will take him up on three points.
First, the hon. Member regards the fears which miners have expressed about opencast working as being due purely to fear of unemployment. I would assure the hon. Member that that is far from the truth, and that miners are just as appreciative of beautiful countryside as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is distinct from the question of the necessity for opencast coal.
I cannot swallow the argument—and here I disagree profoundly with the so-called experts either of the Ministry or of the National Coal Board—which attempts to prove that there is the same value, the same quality, in opencast coal as there is in deep-mined coal. It is time that those who think that there is undertook some further analytical examination. Even if that is their opinion, it is not the opinion of the layman, and I am sure it is not the opinion of the householders, nor yet the opinion even of industrialists. Apart from anything else, there is the fact that within a short space of time it deteriorates and weathers to such a degree that if it were given to the local authorities for roadmaking it would have a more distinct advantage.
I cannot swallow that figure of £9 million profit. It may be the figure on the books, but it cannot otherwise be an accurate one, taking into account the amount for stocking and the amount for distribution afterwards. My view is that it is a figure arrived at on the production site and left at that.
878
The hon. Gentleman astounded me by glorifying the colliery of which he was a director. I know particularly well the area around that colliery. I know full well the conditions of the men working at that colliery at that time. They were very much the same as those at mine, although they were not in the same syndicate. The coal was sold at 12s. 6d. a ton. The hon. Gentleman told the House that that was done to keep the men at work. What a ridiculous statement to make.
The men were working only two or three days a week and the coal was sold at that price, exploiting the men in Europe. When we tried, as we did in Yorkshire, to get an increase in wages and better conditions, we were told—and it was the concerted policy of the coal owners at that time—"We have to compete with coal owners in South Wales and in Durham, and, therefore, we cannot increase your wages." The hon. Gentleman's argument was fallacious. I am sorry that he raised it.
Sir P. Roberts: I was rather hoping that that sort of argument was a thing of the past. I was pointing out to the House how we had long-term export contracts and how important they were. Had we not got them the men might not have been employed for even two or three days in the week. Surely the hon. Member agrees that it is better to have two and a half or three days a week at work than none at all.
Mr. Griffiths: The answer is not as simple as the hon. Member is attempting to make it seem. It may do for unintelligent and for uninformed people, but people who know the industry know quite well that there was stockpiling going on, that what was then done could not have been done in ordinary circumstances, that our miners were being exploited, and that continuity of pit working was obtained at the expense of the miners.
I come to the question of balancing one year with another. The position has been explained perfectly clearly. The calculation of deficit cannot be based on one year or the next. It must be governed by a series of years, and the Coal Board is responsible for the deficit and must make it good. The question of how long that process must take must be a matter to be determined by the Government of the day. Argument on this point, therefore, is rather fruitless.

879
I agree with the hon. Member for Heeley that the Parliamentary Secretary painted a far too rosy picture of the industry. I cannot see the situation as being half as bright as the Parliamentary Secretary assumes it to be, and there are a number of things which I should like to hear explained more fully when we have the Government's reply to the debate. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the price of oil, the most serious competitor to coal, had increased by one-fifth since 1951, while the price of coal had gone up by 60 per cent. That is a rather vague statement. I hope that we shall have the disparity in these prices explained.
The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the deficit which the Coal Board had to meet this year. It is no doubt a source of amusement to the Tory Party to fling around the news that a nationalised industry is faced with a deficit at the beginning of the year of £30 million, but it would be as well if this figure were examined more closely and if some of the reasons for it were taken into consideration rather than that vague statements should be made about it.
Earlier in the debate, it was stated that there had not been very much more capital investment under nationalisation than there had been in the industry before the war, but I do not think that the figures bear out that statement. During the last five years considerably more money has been spent.
Mr. Nabarro: Under a Tory Government.
Mr. Griffiths: Of course, but the Tory Government have increased the interest charges which the Board has to meet. The Board has had to meet extraordinary interest charges, well above those that prevailed in 1945–51, plus Income Tax and—no doubt a nauseating fact for hon. Members opposite—millions of pounds in compensation for 200 pits closed since the nationalisation of the industry.
I would not say that the Coal Board is everything that might be desired, but I would seriously submit that, with all its shortcomings, it has done an exceedingly good job in extraordinary difficult circumstances. If there are complaints to be made about the Board, or about the men, we are entitled to make them, but I should like to hear those complaints
880
expressed by those who have been or are engaged in the industry and know something about it.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) rightly said that with power loading and the introduction of increased mechanisation there is an increase in the production of small coal. It was inevitable that there would be more small coal and more dirt. Non-miners do not understand that. The Coal Board has done a terrific job in spending millions of pounds on the separation of saleable coal. This is a problem that can be very well left to the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board. We all want to see the Board mine large coal, but that involves fewer shots. That is an important point.
Sir P. Roberts: It is the whole answer.
Mr. Griffiths: It may not be the whole answer, but I agree that it is a very important factor which should have the most serious consideration by the National Union of Mineworkers and the Board. Attempts are now being made to solve this problem and I hope that an agreement will be reached to the mutual advantage of all concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with one or two items about which we are entitled to express an element of joy. One of them is the overall increase in productivity at the coal face. The increase may not be as great as one would have hoped, but it is a step in the right direction which should please all of us. The Parliamentary Secretary was not unfair about the manpower situation. His remarks were generally acceptable, but we as miners' representatives and Members of the House cannot alone deal with this problem.
The National Union of Mineworkers, its officials, the officials of the Coal Board, the Electricity Board and every other authority in the land have been under a delusion about this industry. It was generally accepted, until twelve months ago, that it would be a physical impossibility for us to get as much deep-mined coal as would be required for our internal developments and needs. That was the general opinion of all our experts and that opinion has been falsified. I am afraid that, although we have reached the position when we have sufficient for our home consumption, it is not of the right kind.

881
It was nice to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that there has been a substantial fall in tonnage lost through disputes. We all welcome that. I represent the North-East Division and we are nearly at the top of the absenteeism league. However, I think I am voicing the opinion of all my hon. Friends when I say that we would like to see the position improve still further.
The Coal Board must do something about export coal before it is too late. Once we lose markets, it will be difficult to regain them. I am rather alarmed because it is not many years since, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I met the export officials of the Board. They were most anxious to export coal, but could not get sufficient to do so. I hope, therefore, that the mission will be successful. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that it will be useful from the trade aspect, because a serious position confronts us over demand and supply.
I have read the evidence submitted in the Report and have nothing but commendation to offer to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) and his colleagues on the Select Committee who ascertained these facts. One could hardly believe that it would have been possible to do this unique work so well. This first venture involved an exceedingly big job and they have done it in a very satisfactory way.
Many people regard investment in mining as similar to normal business investment. That is not the case, because 75 per cent. of our deep-mined coal is from shafts over fifty years old. Any hon. Member knows that machinery in an engine shop will not work as well after fifty years as some that is only five years old, especially if it has been worked continuously. Coal mining is an extraction industry, and the investment programme must be heavier as time goes on, even to keep up the present output, let alone to improve it.
I have dealt with the question of prices to some extent, but there is one suggestion which was made by the Select Committee which. I am sorry to say, the Government have not thought fit to accept. It was a practical and sensible suggestion that the responsibility should
882
be removed from the Board to the Minister and then brought by the Minister to the House to be debated fully and for prices to be determined.
My final point concerns uneconomic pits, which are a difficult problem involving human relationships. If we have to move men from one place to another I hope that they will be treated generously. I am pleased to note that there are only 15 collieries, small ones at that, so earmarked, but I fear that many more will be affected. I hope that my fears will not be justified, but I trust that the Board will treat the men and their families generously, will look with a sense of responsibility into the question, and that generous allowances will be made to people who have to leave their place of birth and go to what is more or less a foreign area, particularly until they get rehoused.
This is the first instalment of a very full inquiry into a complex and large industry. Many good points have been brought out in evidence and I have no doubt that, with good will on both sides, there will be good results from the Report.
6.38 p.m.
Sir Toby Low: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) has great experience of this industry and he is always listened to with respect. It is for this reason that I value, as I am sure will my colleagues on the Select Committee, his remarks on the usefulness of the Report now before the House. If the Report is valuable to the hon. Gentleman with his knowledge, it is an added tribute.
At the outset, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for the kind things that they have said about our work. We worked as a Committee and it would be wrong to pay a tribute to myself or to any individual. Sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), whose expert assistance was of great value to us. We had the benefit, also, of the expert knowledge of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). We were

883
lucky to have those two, in particular, with their special knowledge of the industry.
May I say, personally, how delighted I am that the Opposition have chosen the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring to wind up the debate for their side this evening? That is another tribute to the Select Committee, in that it has been able to produce the hon. Gentleman to wind up the debate tonight for the Opposition.
I should like to make one or two general remarks about the work of the Select Committee, as I see it, and here I am speaking only for myself. I have not been able to speak for myself for some time, but I am now able to do so, and perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House may agree with me. There are 13 members of the Select Committee—rather a curious number for a Select Committee—and we approached our inquiries, as I think we were bound to do, as laymen. Though, on this occasion, we had two hon. Members who had special knowledge of the industry, that will not be so in every case with similar inquiries. We lack expert advice, and we felt it on this occasion, and that is why the Committee made the comment that it did in the closing sentences of the Report to which the right hon. Member for Blyth referred. I do not think that we ourselves have sufficient experience or sufficient feeling of the problem to make any definite recommendations at the moment.
But I do think that it is an extremely good thing that a Committee carrying out an inquiry like this is a Committee of laymen, because the worst thing we could do in this House would be to set up from among ourselves a body of men who thought that they were experts in the matter and who might try to blur the responsibility of the Coal Board, the House of Commons, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall say a word or two about responsibility in a moment, and it is a question on which, I imagine, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be waiting to hear something from me.
On this point, I should like to express the hope that if any hon. Members on either side of the House think that we ought to conduct these inquiries in a different way, they will let us know,
884
because we are feeling our way. It is bound to be rather experimental for the time being, but I think that, on the whole, in this particular inquiry we have served a useful purpose, at least from the point of view of the House of Commons. Indeed, I have been pleased to hear that certain passages in the Report and the comments we made have been quoted as of value to hon. Members of the House.
This Report serves another purpose. It has, or ought to have, calmed the fears of the critics of the idea. The right hon. Member for Blyth said that he, too, had had these fears, and that he thought the Report proved that they were not justified. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who also said that he had these fears, and who expressed them in his usual lucid and moderate fashion in his excellent book—for it is an excellent book—"Government and Parliament", on page 282, when he has read what I have to say and has had a look at the Report, will also feel that his fears were not justified.
In particular, the right hon. Gentleman feared that the Committee might develop into a body of anti-nationalisers and pro-nationalisers, who might use the Committee for the purpose of discrediting public ownership, on the one hand, or, on the other, for the purpose of seeking to say that the work of the Board was perfect. That certainly was not done; there was an objective analysis.
Foremost among other critics was The Times which, in its various leaders from time to time, and particularly in August, 1953, appeared to consider that Parliament has all the machinery needed, without setting up a Select Committee, for performing this important duty, which it saw as the duty of exerting long-range vigilance, coupled with wise balance, that would stimulate efficiency and enterprise in the nationalised industry. It foresaw the danger that a Select Committee might provide the conditions in which efficiency and enterprise would wither. I do not think that any hon. Member who has read the proceedings of the Committee and has looked at the evidence will think that that fear was born out on this occasion.
There is obviously a limit to what such a Select Committee can do, and a limit to the ground which it could cover. Quite

885
clearly, it did not cover everything. We did not cover opencast coal mining, for example. In passing, I would point out that I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Rother Valley said about opencast coal mining. If I am to mention it, I should declare a slight interest, because I am connected with a company which digs up the coal to be sold at the unfortunately low price which has been commented upon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually so careful, will look up his facts and have a look at the problem anew.
During the inquiry, I think that most of us as individuals must have reached certain broad conclusions about this great industry and the two most important conclusions that I have reached, or the reactions which it created in me, were these. First, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde has already made the same point, I was impressed, indeed almost terrified, by the complexity and vastness of the problems which face these men whose duty it is to serve upon the Coal Board.
We have included in our Report a warning against generalisations on the problem of coal, and that is most important, because even coal itself is not one thing. We hinted, also, at a warning against too great centralisation, and many others have made the same point, I wonder yet whether there is the right balance between decentralisation and central control. We did not go into that, because we thought it right at first to stick to other things, but perhaps at a later date some other Select Committee might like to see how that problem can be worked out.
With this vast and complex machine to control, a tremendous amount must depend on the quality of the men we are able to get to serve the nation in the coal industry, particularly in high positions under the Coal Board. I have no doubt at all that, quite apart from many other considerations, one of the considerations that will affect our ability to get these men will be the way in which this House of Commons and the Select Committee conduct themselves towards great industries like this; and I hope that all of us have tried, both on this occasion and in earlier times, to set an example in these matters.
886
The second general point that occurred to me was one to which I have referred earlier—the point about clear responsibility. It seems to me that where we have a vast and complex set of problems, it is absolutely vital that the responsibility should be clearly understood to lie where it does lie, and it is on this point that I attach so much importance to the recommendations that we made about prices.
Let me now deal with the recommendations and the comments we made, and, first, deal with the general question, to which my hon. Friend referred, of the reply to be made to a Report such as that which the Select Committee has now put before the House. To my mind, the important thing is not how a reply reaches this House, or who makes it. I can think of several constitutional points concerning whether the Coal Board should lay the Report before Parliament or whether it should come from the Minister, as does the Annual Report, which, I would say, was perhaps the most convenient way to do it. The important point is when that reply comes.
If it is known that the House is to have a debate on coal and upon the Report of a Select Committee, it is very convenient for hon. Members to be able to study the reply of the industry commenting upon the Report. I venture to say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it would also be convenient to him, because it must have been a great feat of strength for him to stand at the Box for 75 minutes, and his speech would have been much shorter if he had first been able to lay before the House a report from the Coal Board giving its comments on the Report of the Select Committee.
I realise that great ministerial questions of policy may be involved in a Report like this. Those matters could be easily be reserved if that were thought right. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend should dismiss from his mind the possibility of putting in front of the House as soon as possible, after a Select Committee reports, the nationalised industry's reply, so that we can all see it before we have a debate. After all, Members of Select Committees are human and make mistakes, and it is right that the industry should have a chance to correct comments and factual statements as well as recommendations.
Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning that what is being suggested is that every time the Coal Board proposes a rise in prices after consultation with the Ministry of Power, there should be a debate in the House?
Sir T. Low: The right hon. Gentleman must have been leaping several points ahead of what I was saying. I was talking about—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking—
Mr. Shinwell: I was.
Sir T. Low: —the point the Parliamentary Secretary took about the reply to the Select Committee's Report. I am not on the question of prices at all; I am on the general question.
Having dealt with the general question, I now come to a specific recommendation, and I will take, first, the one on prices. The recommendation on prices is the only recommendation and the only comment with which the Government or the Coal Board have thought fit to differ. It seems to me that a vital thing in such a great industry is that responsibility should be clearly defined—I have said that previously—and it also seems to me sensible that the procedure suggested by the Select Committee, or somthing very like it, should be adopted. That procedure is not so very different from what the Parliamentary Secretary was putting to the House as he may have led us to believe.
We suggested that, before making an alteration in prices, the Board should, as it does now no doubt, have a consultation with the Minister. At that stage it would be informal, just as it is now. We then suggested that it should be for the Board, after its consultation with the Minister and in the light of its knowledge of where he thought the public interest lay, to make up its own mind, because it is responsible for running the industry and ensuring that its accounts keep in the black.
We then suggested that if there were paramount national interests which, in the Minister's view, demanded that the Board's decision on prices should not be allowed to go through, the Minister should give a clear statutory directive and put it in front of the House. It is only in that case, where the Minister has differed
888
from the Board, that the House of Commons becomes directly concerned.
There is nothing very novel about this. If hon. Members will think back to the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, and the procedure imposed by the House upon the Iron and Steel Board, they will see that there is something very like that in the case of steel. The Iron and Steel Board does not own the iron and steel industry, but it has powers to fix prices. Normally, it will lay down the prices without ministerial interference, but elsewhere in the Act the Minister is giving power to give a direction on prices to the Iron and Steel Board. As I remember it, that direction has to be laid before the House.
That procedure is very close to the procedure which we suggested. Though my hon. Friend stressed the importance of informality and close contact between the industry and the Minister—I understand that, of course, and agree with it—I beg him to have another look at this suggestion in the light of what I have said in expanding upon it. To sum up, according to our suggestion there would be the discussion stage before the prices were fixed, and that would be informal. If there were agreement, the procedure would be informal. Only if there was disagreement would it be formal.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: May I assist the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion? I served on the Select Committee under his chairmanship. I think he will agree that our intention was that the power of Ministerial direction should be a reserve power.
Sir T. Low: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. That has probably dealt with the fears on the other side of the House. What he has said is inherent in the suggestion. I was trying to put the matter as clearly as I could and to remind the House of the example of the steel industry.
My right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Defence and I, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply at the time, took pains on many occasions, during the passage of the Iron and Steel Act, to draw the line between the supervision of the national interest and the supervision of the industry as an industrial proposition. I believe that that drawing of the line and defining of responsibilities is a most useful thing to do

889
when public interest and industrial interest are closely related.
There are two other things that I want to say about prices. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will read our recommendations and comments again. He will find that we never suggested that prices of coal should go up at once. In fact, at paragraph 138 we commented as follows:
"Although there are several sound and strong arguments for the proposition that the price of coal is too low relative to its true costs, Your Committee believe that any further increase in the price of small coal might tip the balance in favour of oil as against that of coal for a number of uses. They therefore note with approval the greater emphasis now being given by the National Coal Board to reducing their costs as against the absolute priority they gave earlier to the volume of production."
It was in all our minds that it would not help the coal industry nor the country at the moment to have any further increase in the price of coal.
The other point on prices to which I wish to draw attention is this. In our conclusions we said that we agreed generally with the Board's attitude to prices. I did not hear the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not he agreed generally with the Board's attitude to prices. It is important that we should know.
I am very glad to know that the other recommendations were accepted. There has been much discussion today about the importance of exports. We covered that subject. We made no positive recommendations upon it because we regarded the matter in the main, in its present state, as a commercial problem, and, frankly, we were satisfied—at any rate, we were not dissatisfied—with the way in which the Board was tackling it.
It is easy to oversimplify the problems of exports of coal. It is not just a question of selling coal overseas when we have enough coal to sell overseas. If we want to preserve coal markets, like any other markets, we have to take action to preserve them. It is clear from the evidence that if the Board and everybody connected with that had been left alone it would have liked very much to have preserved its markets, but it was a Government decision—I was a member of Her Majesty's Government at the time
890
—to limit exports—not cancel them altogether.
Hon Members have only to look at the statistics to see this: exports were always considerable, up to 6 million tons—because we had not enough coal here and we could not afford to go on importing coal from overseas. It was not just a question of the amount of dollars that we should have to pay, though that was important it was a question of transport and dock facilities in this country, which are very important, and a question of the freights. The Transatlantic heavy freights were being forced up as a result of the extra quantity of coal which was being transported across the Atlantic.
All those things were taken into account. I was then responsible for overseas trade, and I well remember the impact which it had on our trade relations with the Scandinavian and other European countries with whom I was trying to make arrangements to increase trade in other respects. Looking back, I now realise that it had perhaps an even greater effect on the future markets of the Coal Board than I thought it would have. This matter of exports is vital and the Board has to do everything it can to try to recapture the markets which it has lost, but I hope, only temporarily lost.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been accused of being too optimistic, but I do not think that he was over-optimistic. I thought that he was realistic in rightly reminding us of some of the factors which are favourable. We have become used in discussing the Coal Board problems to thinking in terms of millions of tons of output, but that is not the only thing that matters. Efficiency and the cost of that output also matter. They would matter to our economy in any event, but they matter still more in an age when oil is competitive, especially with small coal.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth made some comments on the competitiveness of oil. I expect that he has read the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Coal Board on that matter. However, there seems to be no doubt that oil will remain competitive for a number of uses, and particularly competitive with small coal.
I regard that as a good thing, but I can appreciate that if I were a miner, or the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring.

891
I should have some apprehension about that competitiveness. Nevertheless, in the interests of the consumers and the country generally, it is a good thing that we should keep the present balance of competitiveness between oil and coal.
Mr. Blyton: One does not object to competing with oil so long as the competition between the Board and the oil companies is fair.
Sir T. Low: I am sure that that competition will be fair. The hon. Member will have noticed that in the electricity generation industry there is a preference for small coal, so we need not have too much fear in that respect.
The downfall in demand must also be causing apprehension to miners and people responsible for the industry. We should not overlook the boon which that fall off in demand may be for the consumer, for after many years of booming demand, demand being much greater than supply, it is a good thing to have a slight relaxation and to have greater emphasis on costs and greater costs consciousness. None of us wants that situation to continue for too long, and we all have in mind the problems of men who lose their work, as the hon. Member for Bother Valley pointed out.
However, it is not a good thing that because of overweaning demand the Coal Board should be forced to keep in production pits which should have gone out of production long ago and which would have been put out of production but for that demand. Profitability may be greatly assisted by this slight relaxation in demand. It is on that note that I end and on that that I share some of the optimism which permeated some part of my hon. Friend's speech. I take hope, because at last conditions have allowed the Coal Board to be more cost-conscious than it was previously able to be.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: There has been a remarkable change in the climate of opinion among hon. Members about the National Coal Board. Several years ago we were engaged in debates which engendered considerable bitterness. Now a vast change has come over the scene. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) was Chairman of a Select Committee which unanimously
892
gave the National Coal Board a clean bill of health. That is a significant feature of the debate.
Another is that in the course of the debate I have not heard a single specific criticism levelled against the National Coal Board. There have been generalisations and assertions of a vague character, but no hon Member has endeavoured to pinpoint some grave defect in the functions or activities of the Board. Over and above that, it is obvious, whatever may have been the opinions of hon. Members opposite in years gone by, that nationalisation of the coal industry is accepted, nationalisation of the coal industry has come to stay. Everyone agrees that in a vast industrial enterprise of this character concerning the national economy and employing 700,000 to 800,000 employees defects are bound to emerge from time to time, but not more so than in privately-owned industry.
Having regard to the circumstances in the past few years and in view of the undoubted fact that because of past neglect of the industry over many years, especially the natural and inevitable neglect during the war, the National Coal Board has done an excellent job in organising and administering this very difficult industry. That should be said in a forthright fashion, with no nonsense about it. Let us treat this matter, not in a partisan spirit, but objectively. We are now all concerned, since it is now accepted that the national ownership of the industry must remain, to maintain and improve the industry and remove whatever defects exist.
Congratulations have been showered on the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North, and I am the last person in the world to deny him or anybody else praise for a worthy achievement. However, I hope that there will not be too many Select Committees. From what some hon. Members have said—and I am not sure that it was not in the mind of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North when he referred to the advantage of Select Committees—it seems that some Members have the idea that a Select Committee should be kept in reserve to keep a watchful eye on the nationalised industries.
We shall place the nationalised industries in a most invidious position if we make it necessary for them always to look over their shoulders. That is not the

893
position of private industry. There are no Select Committees for I.C.I., General Electric, or the many concerns with which the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North is associated. A Select Committee now and again is all very well, but let us not have too many. At the inception of nationalisation, the whole idea was that the Coal Board, the British Transport Commission—which is not under review today—and the other nationalised boards or authorities should be empowered to conduct their administration without unnecessary interference.
If anybody knows about this it is myself—if I may say so with all due modesty—because I had to pilot through this assembly the two nationalisation Bills concerned with the coal and electricity industries, and I also had something to do with the preparation of the Gas Bill. I remember the discussions which preceded the introduction of the Coal Nationalisation Bill. We had to concern ourselves with a choice—to build up the industry either under national ownership, on the model of the Post Office, with full Ministerial and Parliamentary control, or under some board or corporation operating under the general direction of a Minister. We plumped for the latter policy.
Our idea was that the Coal Board should have full power of administration and that there should be no unnecessary interference; indeed, the only possible interference we provided for was by way of a general direction from the Minister. This was accepted by the House. If we had proposed the alternative Post Office conception, it would undoubtedly have been opposed by hon. Members opposite. On the whole, the system has worked very well. My only caveat would be that the time has come when we might be permitted to ask occasional Questions in the House about administration.
If I am told that that was not my idea when I stood at the Dispatch Box presenting the Bill to the House and that there should be no interference in day-to-day administration, even by way of Questions, my answer is—and this is attributable to Lord Acton, the great political historian and scholar—"Never mind what I have said or written in the past; you consider the opinion I express now", or words to that effect. There is no particular virtue in consistency.
894
We must take into account changes which have occurred during the years. I do not want to pursue this matter, because I imagine that we shall have an opportunity of discussing a subject bearing upon that aspect of political philosophy at another time.
Let us consider the position of the Coal Board at its inception. The Board had to proceed upon the formidable task of almost wholesale reorganisation. Furthermore, not only was it faced with a shortage of labour; what labour it had was largely middle-aged and old—much of it too old. All those difficulties were known to me, because I had to bear the brunt of them. Incidentally, there was much talk about the crisis that we had at that time. One day, when we are allowed to divulge Cabinet secrets, the full story will be told. But there have been several Ministers of Fuel and Power since 1947, and it seems to me that we have had crises ever since.
There has always been trouble in this industry. We either have too much coal or too little. The present problem, apparently, is that we have too much coal; the Parliamentary Secretary, in his admirable presentation of the case—it was a little too long, but we cannot help that sort of thing; we must grin and bear it—seemed to take that view.
We must consider what is to happen to the industry in future. Speaking with such knowledge as I possess, and without any attempt at unnecessary conjecture or indulging in any crystal gazing, it seems to me that some of the apprehensions which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House are quite unnecessary and likely to create alarm and despondency in circles which may regard them seriously. I do not think there is an iota of truth in any of these pessimistic statements. The Parliamentary Secretary was right. Far from being unduly optimistic, he was not optimistic enough. Just now there is an abundance of small coal. There would not have been so much small coal if it had not been for mechanisation.
In spite of the criticism of opencast operations, I have been associated with this industry long enough—for forty years or so, politically and otherwise, in terms of the constituencies that I have represented and as Secretary for Mines, Minister for Mines, Minister of Fuel and

895
Power and the rest—to know, through the technical experts, that one also gets a substantial amount of inferior coal from deep-mined production. Do not let us cavil too much about opencast coal on the ground of its inferior quality.
Is the future as black as it is painted, or is it the kind of future which is calculated to attract young persons into the industry? I very rarely trouble with notes of any kind, but I happened to take note of some statistics, and although they may not be acceptable, I venture to use one which has a bearing upon this subject. I believe it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) who referred to the possibility of utilising our present stocks. Although he was pessimistic, I would point out that we have to take into account the possibility of increased consumption not only in this country but on the whole Continent of Europe.
In this respect, one figure is worth while considering. The European consumption of fuel and energy in 1955—coal, electricity, oil and any other form of fuel—was 730 million tons. In 1975, it is estimated that we shall require 1,200 million tons. I do not think that that is too optimistic an estimate. Production is rising all the time. Whether the present position is due to the Government policy of the credit squeeze, or some other monetary consideration, is beside the point under the capitalist system we are bound to have booms and slumps. No doubt slump conditions will disappear and for a while we shall have a boom—we should have a boom all the easier and all the more prolonged if we could get rid of the present Government; but I do not want to indulge in controversial topics. Therefore, it is quite wrong to assume that the industry is played out, as so many people have said, or that it is not an attractive proposition. It is a very attractive proposition indeed.
Let us not forget that one of the principal problems confronting the industry since nationalisation is the fact—it is a remarkable thing—that our industrial position has been improving all the time. Indeed, the problems of the coal industry, in a sense, are the measure of our industrial prosperity.
Mr. Nabarro indicated dissent.
Mr. Shinwell: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. It will come off if he goes on shaking it—
Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman would be correct in what he said a moment ago if he would have some regard to the fact that progressively, year by year, the efficiency with which coal is used in this country is improving enormously—
Mr. Shinwell: Of course.
Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman says "of course", but let me finish. The corollary of that is that each year the demand by industry for coal is being progressively reduced. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to evaluate that before making these sweeping generalisations?
Mr. Shinwell: I do not quarrel with the hon. Member when he says something sensible; why should I? We welcome these occasional sensible observations—even intelligent observations—from the hon. Gentleman; of course we do. Of course, I accept that. Naturally the increased efficiency in the firing of boilers has helped. That is the sort of efficiency which the hon. Gentleman himself has suggested in this House from time to time, and it is a very valuable contribution. I wish the hon. Gentleman would make other valuable contributions. But that single contribution seems to be peculiar to him. Of course, all these things are very valuable, but that is not the sole reason why the coal problems have accumulated.
There is no doubt that in electricity generation, in gas production and in the industrial use of coal, generally speaking there has been a vast improvement. And, of course, that has increased the problems of the coal industry. But for a time, as I say, there is a lull. What are we going to do about it?
Before I venture to indulge in one or two positive proposals—one ought to do that if one is inclined to criticise—let us have a word or two about the social aspect. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the possibility of pits closing down and that that involved perhaps a million tons of coal. It does not seem a great deal, but I understand that a pit is to close in my constituency.
Mr. Nabarro: That is different.
Mr. Shinwell: Of course it is different. It does not happen to be a small pit, nor is it in a small village.
It is easy enough to say that the men can find employment elsewhere. No doubt they can be absorbed after we get rid of the redundancy—the waste. But what does waste mean? It does not mean people dying or even being pensioned off. It means that at a certain age there is no more work for them, because the older men have to go first. It means, also, that men who have to find employment elsewhere will have to travel many miles. It may mean the uprooting of homes. This is not merely a matter of sentiment—something we can mention with tears or with emotion; it is a practical proposition affecting the lives of people. There are material considerations involved, and we have to be very careful about it.
I should like to say a word about how I think we can face some of the problems. Take, for example, the three main factors in the present position: first of all the excessive accumulation of small coal; secondly—the one I have just dealt with—the fear of pits closing; and thirdly, the loss of export markets. These are the three main problems. Two are of an economic character and one of a social character. How shall we deal with them?
If there is any criticism to be levelled against the National Coal Board, it should be in relation to the lack of mechanical means of briquetting. I had something to do with this while at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I saw many briquetting works throughout the country—not as many as I should have liked to see, and there are not as many now as one would like to see—and I thought at the time that the Board should devote more attention to the construction of briquetting operations. No doubt the Board has been engaged in extensive reorganisation in the pits—the sinking of shafts and other long-term tasks—but I believe that if more attention had been devoted to briquetting operations we might have been able to deal with at any rate part of the problem presented by small coal.
Inasmuch as it possesses volatile qualities, much of this small coal could be used in by-product operations, and not enough of that has been done. At the time when the nationalisation legislation was going
898
through the House I appointed a scientific member of the National Coal Board with the idea that he would devote attention to research into the uses of coal. Not enough has been done on those lines, and the Board might pay more attention to that aspect.
A great deal has been said about prices. I do not cavil at the idea that it may be necessary to reduce prices to some extent in order to sell more coal abroad. But I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster that we cannot go too far in that direction. Otherwise the Coal Board will suffer a financial loss which can be made up only by it refusing to meet the demands of miners for increased wages due to an increase in the cost of living or some other reason—the loss of Saturday working and the like—or by rising prices. That would create more criticism against the Board than exists at present. But something can be done in that direction. I believe that if the Board is encouraged to proceed with its export policy, in the course of time—perhaps not this year or next, but in two or three years—we shall again build up our export trade. I agree with every hon. Member who has said that this is of the utmost importance for the economy of this country.
Now I will deal with the question of the social effects of the closing down of pits. I must be brief, because to deal with it in detail would take a long time. There is a matter which has been very near and dear to me, a subject to which I attach the greatest possible importance, although I do not expect everyone to agree with me. It is this. When the nationalisation legislation was passing through the House we inserted an Amendment which provided for consultation between the representatives of the workers in the trade unions in the industry and the National Coal Board; not only regarding wages, or health, or safety or amenities—they were all included—but also—I think I can use almost the exact language—on any matter relating to the organisation and administration of the industry. In my innocence, I believed that that would not only be acceptable but be carried out to the full. I have been grievously disappointed.
I am not speaking of pit committees, area committees and the like, but full

899
consultation, amounting to full co-operation, between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board.
Mr. T. Brown: At the highest level.
Mr. Shinwell: At the highest level. I am not suggesting that the National Union of Mineworkers should associate in partnership with the National Coal Board. It would not accept the idea. I know the views of Mr. Ernest Jones, Mr. Arthur Horner and other miners leaders on this subject. They accept responsibility for their own membership, and they wish to leave themselves open to engage in dispute when necessary and to reject arbitration awards.
I do not seek to deprive them of those privileges or responsibilities, but in so far as it was possible for them to associate themselves with the Coal Board in the economic considerations which affect this great national industry and, of course, affect miners as much as the Coal Board and the country, it would lead to better feeling in the industry. They could associate themselves, for example, in the checking of accounts, the ascertainment of expenditure, the right to ask this question and that question which affects the build-up of miners' wage rates, the right to ask questions about how prices are regulated and how decisions are reached about the price of coal and about a variety of other subjects. If that were done it would lead to a much better feeling in the mining industry and would at any rate give the miners a status and a sentiment that, after all, they count for something in this great national industry and are not merely hewers of wood and drawers of water, if I may use that commonplace expression.
I believe that something of that kind is required, and I very much regret—nor am I afraid to say it—that because of the refection of its demand for an increase of 10s. for the day-wage-rate workers—and, heaven knows, the day-wage-rate workers need the increase, because their wages are much too low—the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to suspend arbitration arrangements. I regret it, and I do not think that it will lead to any advantage for the miners, for the Coal Board or for the industry.
A great deal has been said about production and productivity, and I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary
900
speak up for the miners and defend them and say that output per man-shift has increased. It is a very good thing that we should have someone on the Government benches praise the Coal Board and the mineworkers, for a change. Let us have more of it.
But we ought to have had greater productivity. It is all very well to say, "What is the use of producing more if we cannot sell it?" Output per man-shift is of the highest importance. It ought to be improved throughout the whole of the country and in every possible industry. If we want a larger share of the cake, we must see that production is increased. The only point is that we must ensure that we get a larger share of the cake.
Dealing, finally, with the question of prices, I understand that the Select Committee recommends that when the Coal Board decides to increase the price of coal at any given moment, based on the prevailing conditions, it should go to the Minister and enter into consultation with him. If the Minister agrees, that is the end of the matter, because the Coal Board then makes its own determination. There may be some criticism, but that is beside the point. On the other hand, if the Minister disagrees, for one reason or another, there is a conflict between the Minister and the Coal Board, and that conflict reaches the House, because the reasons for the Minister's refusal to agree with the Coal Board's proposition must come before the House.
What is the situation then? As I see it, the Government are bound to support the Minister; they cannot do otherwise. If they did otherwise he would have to resign and that would be a Governmental crisis. They are therefore unlikely to oppose him. The Government would support the Minister against the Coal Board, and if we were in opposition we should be supporting an increase in coal prices while hon. Members opposite were refusing the increase. I do not think there is any political advantage in that. It might be even worse if we were the Government.
Mr. Nabarro: I am sure it would.
Mr. Shinwell: Whether we were the Government or the Opposition, there would be a conflict.

901
I would much rather accept the Government's view and reject that proposal. I would rather leave it to the Coal Board to consult the Minister about its proposed price determination. Having been consulted, the Minister must say, "It is your business. You raise the price of coal and you must accept responsibility." It is far better to do that. I agree that the Minister has to bear in mind economic considerations of a national character. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that we vested power in the National Coal Board to determine these matters for themselves, and particularly because so many hon. Members on this side of the House have said that the Coal Board must have the right to increase prices where necessary because otherwise they could not pay decent wages and meet their obligations, it is far better to leave the decision to the Board.
I have said enough on the subject, and I regret having spoken for so long. Let us get rid of this gloomy and pessimistic outlook towards the coal industry. It has a great future. I enjoyed the excellent opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), as I am sure we all did. Speaking with great breadth of knowledge and great wisdom, he said that in our indigenous coal we have a priceless asset. It is an asset which will last many hundreds of years. It may last much longer than oil resources, which are not inexhaustible. Let us not forget that they are subject to political manœuvre in many parts of the world. Let us treasure this priceless indigenous asset of ours and, instead of criticising the National Coal Board, let us consult the Board, ask questions in a courteous fashion and endeavour in whatever way we can to make nationalisation of the coal industry a great success.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Successive Conservative Ministers responsible for fuel and power have proclaimed that the nation's fuel policy rests on three tenets. They have said this every year since 1954. The first is that we should endeavour by all means to mine more coal. The second is that we should endeavour to develop to the best of our ability alternative forms of fuel or energy resources, including, notably, atomic power and oil. The third is that we
902
should use all our fuel and energy resources, notably coal, with the maximum possible efficiency.
Having regard to the profoundly changed circumstances of the coal industry, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, in winding up the debate, will tell us this evening whether the Ministry of Power's future fuel policy rests upon those three fundamental considerations. That is the crux of our debate today. There has not been any proclamation from the Treasury Bench as to what should be our general direction in fuel policy matters and whether those three essentials, enunciated year after year by Conservative Ministers, still hold good in the profoundly changed circumstances of the coal industry today.
What are those circumstances? I will relate them in my own way. The first is the conversion of a sellers' market for coal, which has existed since 1940, into a buyers' market that is commercial parlance. The second is the existence of inconveniently large stocks of somewhat unsuitable grades of coal. The third is the large loss forward or financial deficit of the National Coal Board. The fourth is the unprecedented scale of absenteeism in the pits. The fifth is the change in the political circumstances in the Middle East manifest by today's events, which may change overnight the fuel and power position in this country, marginally reliant, as we are, on imported fuel oil.
I want to deal with those fundamental issues. Three years ago, in 1955, I felt so strongly about the behaviour of the Government in relation to the Coal Board that I led 25 of my hon. Friends into the Lobby against the Government. I thought that the finances of the Board were deranged. I thought that the employment of our fuel resources was unsatisfactory and inefficient. So did my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
Sir I. Horobin indicated assent.
Mr. Nabarro: I am glad that my hon. Friend nods assent. I was closely associated with him on that occasion, when he voted with me against the Government. [Laughter.] It is nothing to giggle about. I prize independence in the House. If in saying things this evening I tread on a lot of corns, I am not in the least worried, because I believe with conviction that I am right.

903
I want to ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the Motion for which he voted on 10th May, 1956. I must refresh the memory of the House as to the terms of the Motion which I moved. It stated that
"this House, while welcoming any measure which would increase the economic production of coal, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will extend the ability of the National Coal Board to borrow without adequate Parliamentary control, and which permits a large increase in public expenditure upon an undertaking which has made continual losses despite heavy capital investment".
My hon. Friend voted for that Motion with me.
Miss Jennie Lee: He knows better now.
Mr. Nabarro: No; my hon. Friend is not a poacher turned gamekeeper.
However, the point about which I want to ask my hon. Friend concerns the assurance given to me on that day by the then Minister of Fuel and Power, the present Minister of Supply, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). In c. 1437 he said.
"If the annual borrowing"—
that is, of the National Coal Board—
"were to exceed £75 million it would be permissible only by Order debatable in the House. In no other nationalised undertaking does any such provision exist," [OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 1437 and 1452.]
Governments often forget their promises very easily, even a Tory Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I listened to my hon. Friend for 74 minutes without once interrupting him.
Sir I. Horobin: My hon. Friend is about the only one who did not.
Mr. Nabarro: I left that to the Opposition.
What I was saying to ray hon. Friend was that in 1956 we were promised a Statutory Instrument when the capital investment of the Coal Board in any full year exceeded £75 million. It has so exceeded that sum in each of the last three years. But where is the Statutory Instrument? I want to debate it. I shall want to pray against it. I shall want to relate it to the deficit forward of the Coal Board which, at 31st December last, was almost £30 million. Will my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-
904
General tell me when the Statutory Instrument will be forthcoming? That is my first question.
Secondly, I want to know what is likely to be the attitude of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench towards the financial loss forward of the Board. I am not particularly interested in the academic argument as to how many years one must take as a cycle, for the Board to pay its way, taking year by year, in accordance with the terms of the nationalisation statutes. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) introduced disingenuous and almost un-interpretable words into the nationalisation Act for which he was responsible in 1947.
But he knows as well as I do that the chink in the armour of the economic policy of the Government at this time is this. Last September, we were told that the Government would not underwrite inflation. But Her Majesty's Government are responsible for furnishing the money for the Coal Board. The loss last December was £30 million. My estimate of what the loss will be at 31st December, 1958, is approximately £55 million. I think that the Board will lose £25 million on this year's working. In the first quarter it made a surplus of £3 million, compared with last year's surplus in the first quarter of £8 million. It was £5 million worse off. Since then, production has steadily declined and is now running in a full year at the rate of 10 million tons less than last year.
The solvency of the Coal Board depends not only on balancing its expenditure with its income year by year in the terms of the Statute, but upon raising production and not allow it to fall. The Board cannot possibly earn a surplus on this year's trading with a loss in production of 10 million tons compared with last year. My hon. Friend referred to 15 little pits with production worth 1 million tons in a full year, or equal to less than half of 1 per cent. of national coal production, which is, to use the vernacular, a piddling amount. It is so piddling as to be infinitesimal. If the Coal Board is to be solvent, I am concerned with whether my right hon. Friend is right in continuing a policy of deliberately depressing coal production, which appears to be what he is doing today.

905
I asked my hon. Friend in a Parliamentary Question, the Monday before last, whether he viewed with equanimity the fall of 10 million tons in coal production this year compared with last year. His reply was to the effect that this was a planned reduction in production. That is a disastrous policy. The finances of the Coal Board can remain solvent only if productivity and production is continued at a high level. How, then, is the accumulated deficit to be dealt with?
I am not in the least worried today about a temporary surplus of coal which may for the time being be a little difficult to place. Why am I not so worried? Surely the sort of surplus which we have today, representing perhaps five weeks' production, is tiny compared with the total fuel requirement of this nation. We are dependent today for most of our marginal supplies of fuel upon imported oil.
I now come to a point of close identity of view with the right hon. Member for Easington. I condemned root and branch the policy of my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Education when, in 1954 and 1955, he said over and over again that he proposed to place increasing reliance on imported fuel oil. I told him that, due to political circumstances and for a variety of other factors, it was a disastrous policy. Today, I am more apprehensive than ever.
Iraq is in a state of revolution. Britain's principal ally in the Middle East is prostrate and her Prime Minister murdered. Nuri Al Said was here just eleven days ago. A substantial part of Britain's imported oil comes from Iraq. Suppose that source of supply is lost to us? The next step would be the grave imperilling of our supplies of fuel oil from the Persian Gulf.
I know that oil is not mentioned in the Motion, but copious reference has been made in earlier speeches today to oil, in view of the competition that there is on our home market between fuel oil and coal supplies. In view of this new political crisis in the Middle East, we would be ill advised to place increasing dependence on fuel oil. Rather would I have a policy here at home of continuing to mine the maximum tonnage
906
of coal, even if it means storing increasing quantities.
The right hon. Member for Easington represented a coal mining constituency in the inter-war years. He remembers depression. He will also be able to tell me, roughly, what were the stocks of coal on the surface in those days. They were enormous compared with the quantity which we are saying is an embarrassment today. In 1926, we went through several months of almost total stoppage in the coal industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "We imported Polish coal."]—with no other industry dependent upon coal being stopped. It is true that we imported Polish coal and coal from many other sources. My point—I do not have the figures available, but the right hon. Member for Easington knows that I am talking the truth—is that stocks on the surface in those days were immeasurably larger than the 25 million tons that we have on the surface today, distributed from pitheads and undistributed.
What I want to say to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who will be replying to the debate tonight, is that it would be a mistaken policy and a policy which, in my view, would lead to increasing troubles, economic, financial and otherwise, which would affect a sphere far wider than that of the Coal Board, if we endeavoured in any way to circumscribe or to inhibit the policy, which we have proclaimed to be the correct one for many years past, of mining as much coal as we possibly can year by year. As a corollary or consequential upon what I am now enunciating in the national interest, I say that such a policy would be more likely to lead to restoration of the Coal Board's finances and its future solvency than the policy of planned reduction in coal output to which my right hon. Friend at present seems to be adhering.
I ask my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, as a complement to what I have said about the need for continuing to increase coal production as largely as possible, what is his view as to the future of our combined efforts in this House to promote the most efficient use of coal in industry, and in the home.
The right hon. Member for Easington put his emphasis in the wrong place. The right hon. Member for Blyth put his emphasis in the wrong place. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary put

907
his emphasis in the wrong place when he tried to analyse causes for the decline in the consumption of coal. It is nothing whatever to do with the stagnation, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have called it, of British industrial production. The right hon. Member for Easington did not say that, but the right hon. Member for Blyth did. He used the word "stagnation".
Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Member tell us the figures that the steel industry, for example, will use?
Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I will. I will deal with all these matters in the next moment or two.
In my view, the decline in the consumption of coal is not mainly due to causes attributed to it by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The principal and primary cause has been the remarkable and progressive increase in the efficiency with which coal is consumed and burned. Take, for example, the electricity industry. In the last few years, the right hon. Member for Blyth has been fond, and rightly so, of commending the nationalised electricity supply industry for its great increase and improvement in the efficiency with which coal is burned.
In fact, we should need about 5 million or 6 million tons of extra coal every year to promote the growth of electricity generation at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum, power supply, in arithmetical progression, doubling in each decade, coupled with the increasing needs of the gas industry, coupled with the increasing needs of 300,000 new houses erected every year, and so on. The aggregation of increased demand for coal each year notionally should be about 5 million to 6 million tons. The whole of that has been offset and coal consumption has actually been reduced in each of the last two or three years, largely due to the quite sensational results of fuel efficiency efforts.
I am not the only person who has said that we could save up to 10 to 15 million tons of coal a year by greater combustion efficiency. Far greater authorities than I have written and said it outside the House. The plain fact is that a group of Members, on both sides, took through the clean air legislation. Many doctors may have been concerned about the condition
908
of people's lungs. Of course, I wanted their health impoved or their lives saved, but that was a corollary to the economic factor that the only way we could legislate for British industry to burn coal more efficiently was by attacking dark and black smoke. We are now doing that on a large scale. It is increasing the rate of decline of consumption for bituminous coal and will do so progressively over the next few years.
Every mining Member on the benches opposite will agree with me when I say that. Equally, every mining Member opposite will agree when I say that the right hon. Member for Easington, as Minister of Fuel and Power, or the right hon. Member for Blyth, in his capacity in those years as Parliamentary Secretary, were both keen on getting industrialists to insulate their buildings. Half a dozen Socialists and half a dozen Tories joined together last Session to take through the Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Bill. It will increase the rate of decline in consumption for bituminous coal progressively year by year until it reaches a saving of 6 million tons in a full year. That is not my figure. It is the figure of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service.
I hope, therefore, that hon. Members opposite will not proclaim that the decline in the demand for coal is a corollary of stagnation in British industrial producton. I do not think that any significant part of it can be attributed to that cause. The major single factor is the great improvement in efficiency with which coal is burned. That does not, however, mean that I am lacking in any way in my confidence as to the future of the coal industry. Even when the whole of Britain's electrical power demands are generated by nuclear means, even when our only two primary methods for fuel and energy production are based on nuclear power and on oil, coal will still be overwhelmingly valuable to us for a reason which was not mentioned by the right hon. Member for Easington.
In the year 2000 A.D., if I read the future in any way correctly, the value of coal will be that we shall extract from it 100 per cent. of its priceless chemical qualities, a manifestation of which is to be found today in everything from the common aspirin to ladies' nylon stockings. We shall extract from it 100 per cent. of its chemical properties. That is the future

909
of coal. We shall not burn coal as we have done in the last few years, and see 80 per cent. of it wasted and only 20 per cent. of it gainfully used.
To return to my first few words, I want my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General to make it quite clear to the House, having regard to all the circumstances to which I have referred, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in fuel and energy matters still rests upon those triple tenets: first, to increase coal production by the maximum amount; secondly, to develop the use of alternative fuels, notably nuclear power and oil, to the maximum extent; and, thirdly, to use all our fuel and energy resources with the maximum efficiency. That has been our fuel policy. Having regard to the changed circumstances of the coal industry, is it to be our fuel policy in the future?
7.59 p.m.
Miss Jennie Lee: We on this side will forgive the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) much—and we often have much to forgive—because of his buoyant and wholehearted enthusiasm for making the best use of British coal. We would all agree with him that the future lies with the best possible forms of production and the development of by-products, not only for use in industry, but for use in the home. The younger housewife and the more modern-minded older housewife are now more ready to use by-products such as briquettes.
Probably some of us in this House are historical survivors, especially those of us who come from the mining areas, because it is difficult for us to think of a home as being somewhere without the old-fashioned fireplace and the poetry and movement of it. That is a passing thing. It is not something of our generation; it is a thing of memories. I think it is true, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, that the future of the coal industry will be very greatly influenced by the fact that in a changing world we may find ourselves exporting not so much raw coal but all kinds of by-products which we have at the present time and others which the future will bring forth.
It will be a great relief during this debate not to be having stone in the coal and the faults of the miners thrown at us
910
all the time. I hope that some hon. Members opposite, after reading the Report of the Select Committee, feel a little penitent about many of the unfair criticisms which they have made both of the Coal Board and the miners, because those of them who did not formerly know the facts now know that in a period when we were short of coal and encouraging the Coal Board to maximum production it was absolutely inevitable that with the new coal cutting machinery we should have a great deal of small coal and dirty coal. Yet almost in the same breath many hon. Members opposite are critical or fearful about the amount of money spent in capital equipment in the pits. At the same time, they want more money spent in developing machinery which can give us selective qualities of coal. They cannot have it both ways.
The fascinating part of this debate for me has been how many of us are trying to have it bath ways on the economic front. The part of the Select Committee's Report dealing with the price of coal opens up an entirely new approach for us in this House. The Committee made it quite clear that there is a dilemma between the economic price and the social price. The miners and the Coal Board—everyone who lives in this industry—are very conscious of that fact, and also very resentful of the fact that while, since 1940, there has been a sellers' market in coal, there has been every kind of political and social stricture put on the price of coal. To many of us it seems very unfair if that has to be the world in which the Coal Board and the miners and the Miners' Union operate while at the same time their products are going into many private industries which have very different laws altogether.
The most outstanding example is the relationship between coal and steel. I do not see how we can face the future without some measure of economic planning which says that whatever law is right in fixing a price for coal must also be right for steel. We cannot have the collier saying that he is working in order to make profit for the steel industry.
I do not want to broaden the debate unduly, but no one so far has answered the dilemma raised of whether or not the product is going to demand an economic price or is going to be controlled by

911
social and political considerations. I hope that before we have many more National Coal Board debates it will be serious politics in this House to talk of a Ministry of Economic Planning. We can look at the work which has been done by the Treasury, by the Board of Trade, by the Ministry of Power, but if we in this House are going to take any kind of useful and intelligent control over nationalised industries, then I think that we have to look at the grouping of our Government Departments.
It is absolutely essential in the position in which not only British coal but British industry is today, and with all our import and export problems—and we have very much in our minds the development of the situation in the Middle East—that before we can decide the price of coal we have also to decide the selling price of gas, electricity and transport, whether it is rail, road or canal. We are well on that journey already, but we have not gone far enough and we cannot stop now at the half-way house. I hope that the next time we come to discuss the selling price of this basic commodity it will form a logical, defensible and understandable plan related to the selling price of our other basic commodities.
It is late, and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. There are, however, two things I want to mention today. I am not asking the Government to say that they should advise the National Coal Board to stop opencast coal mining. I know that it cannot be done just like that. I ask the Government to remember that opencast coal mining does not produce merely a commodity to be put on the market but is a way of producing coal which disturbs the whole life of a mining community much more than a deep-mine pit. We are used to the pits and accept them. We are used to thinking of those areas as home, where the schools are and where one can get some sanctuary and immunity from the pits. But what we get in too many parts of the country—I do not speak only for my own constituency in the Midlands—is mining villages completely ravaged by the workings of opencast coal mining.
It may be that the Government are not so worried today about recruitment in the mining areas. We warn ourselves each year that it is the older men who are
912
manning the coal mining industry and that we are not yet making it sufficiently attractive to bring in the young men or even to keep as many of our young men as we may want. If this industry is to have the future that it must have, because coal's future is Britain's future and coal is something indigenous which we have and can cherish and use to the best possible ability, we have to see that we build up family life and possibly plan for beauty as well as labour in those areas. Each time we get a mining village devastated by opencast mining we get a very discontented and often very unhappy population.
The other thing which I want to take time to discuss is something which lies very heavy on my heart. Like practically all who are taking part in this debate, I too was born in a mining village. My father and grandfather were miners, and I represent coal miners. There is no sadder sight than that of the old miner who is coughing, whose lungs are broken up and who has no future to look forward to except that of increasing poverty and increasing pain and suffering.
We try to do something about pneumoconiosis. We tabulate the number of men certified year by year, and we are trying preventive measures. We have not done enough about that yet, but we have it very much on our minds. We are trying to reduce the incidence of the injury to the lungs from coal working and from coal dust. From page 52 of Volume I of the National Coal Board's Annual Report and Accounts, we see that from 1949 to 1953 20,878 miners were certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis.
Yet in the two volumes of this Annual Report there is not a single mention of chronic bronchitis. We cannot dodge this issue much longer. It is not enough to say that chronic bronchitis is not confined solely to miners. Of course it is not, but it happens to be a fact that the number of underground workers in the mines who die from chronic bronchitis compared with the number of agricultural workers who die from chronic bronchitis is 6 to 1. I asked a Question on 7th July about the relative number of deaths of miners and agricultural workers from bronchitis, and I was given the total for the period from 1949 to 1953, in the age group 20 to 64, as being 692 agricultural workers

913
and 1,540 coal miners. I have already given the number of men certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis in the same five years.
Why cannot we have the same amount of insurance and protection for chronic bronchitis? In the cotton industry, if a man or woman who has been ten years in the industry suffers from chronic bronchitis, then it is considered an industrial disease. Could I have it explained to me why, if a man has been working in the coal pits for over ten years—I should like that period to be shorter—and develops chronic bronchitis, even though it is not caused solely by the conditions in which he works, it is not regarded as having been probably caused by them and why he should not be given the benefit of the doubt?
I come once again to the problem of getting the right kind of optimism in the mining industry. I want to see the flower of our youth work in the coal industry. A prudent young man, looking ahead—or, still more, a prudent young woman looking at an imprudent young man, and thinking of the future—and knowing that father or grandfather, or a friend or a neighbour is coughing his lungs out, will not be attracted to the industry unless there is proper provision made against the incidence of the disease.
Perhaps that prudent young woman has memories, as some of us have, of going to the doctor and being told, "Do you mean to say that every time that man comes here he has a cough?" I have seen many a good man humiliated and angered and insulted by practically being told that he was putting it on. Once upon a time a doctor's examination did not reveal the cause of the cough. I have often heard it said that a man who wanted to dodge the column could cough a bit more and make himself seem a bit worse. It is very encouraging that now we have breathing tests and other checks in addition to X-ray examinations which quite conclusively prove that if a man says he is suffering from severe bronchitis he is indeed suffering from it.
I do not see how it is possible for us, with our civilised conception of the Welfare State and with our desire to attract the best of our youth into a great industry like this, not to begin to give more serious consideration to this problem than we have hitherto done. We shall never get the quality of miner we
914
want, the best brains and the best standards, until we attend to these social problems. There must be decent homes for miners' families. A miner must have a decent home from the beginning of his married life. A miner must not, as he too often has to do now, have to wait several years until his second child is born before getting a home.
This is the industry of the future, and it is an industry which will offer great excitements and an ever widening diversity of products, and I hope that in this debate we shall concern ourselves not only with production, as we so rightly do, but also with producing the right kind of environment and the right kind of social and medical amenities for the men who man the mines.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Richard Fort: In following the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), I would touch on the problem she mentioned of pneumoconiosis and lung diseases. One of the most rewarding jobs the Medical Research Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, has recently done is through its remarkable unit which has been working on pneumoconiosis for a number of year in one of the South Wales valleys and which has thrown so much light upon the causes of the disease. Indeed, the fundamental work is now changing and the unit is turning to wider aspects.
Like the hon. Lady, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I have much hope and enthusiasm for the future of the industry. I think that the importance of the work of the Select Committee, on which I had the pleasure of working for a number of months, has been in throwing into focus, in a way no previous report on the coal industry has done, whether an annual report or reports on certain aspects of the industry, the fundamental problems about the future of coal mining in the United Kingdom with which the National Coal Board and the Ministry are confronted.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock dealt shortly at the start of her speech with what, I believe, is probably the most important result that we in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries obtained when she referred to the problem of coal prices and said, very truly, that these are in a half-and-half world which is neither

915
economic nor social. Although that argument had been put forward by those who study the industry, it was our investigation in the Select Committee that brought up this dilemma so clearly. Study of the evidence given last year will show not only confusion among members of the Committee, which might have been expected, but among those who appeared as witnesses, as to the bases of the Coal Board's pricing policy.
I therefore heard with regret that the Ministry has turned a cold shoulder to the recommendations which we made in an effort to secure a more certain basis for future coal-pricing policy. We thought that the right way to do it, without undue interference with the industry, was by making the line of responsibility much clearer than it has been in the past, as was suggested in an earlier speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low). We must have a pricing policy which, in so far as it is based on social considerations, must be based on considerations which are clearly known but which, I think, ought also to be based more than in the past on economic considerations.
There has been much talk of the booming demand for coal in the past ten years, but that demand undoubtedly has been the result of deliberately keeping down the price of many industrial grades of coal, for reasons which have never been fully explained to the House. I have no doubt that the fuel efficiency improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred, and in the advocating of which he has played a notable part in the House, would have been stimulated much earlier if industrialists and others had had to think more closely about their consumption of coal than they have done in the past. The truth of the matter is that a nationalised industry, dealing with a commodity which touches everybody's homes so closely, in the sense of the money that it takes out of the family income, will always be exposed to much political pressure, not only in the Press but in the House. It will be extremely difficult for Ministers of Power to resist demands that the price of coal should not be increased when there may be perfectly good economic reasons why an increase is not only desirable but essential.
916
Unless considerations like this are taken into account, we shall have in the future a repetition of the situation on which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and myself joined issue with the Select Committee, namely, on averaging the price of imported coal with that of home-mined coal, thus stimulating demands for more coal, making further large imports necessary, with a resultant further loss of dollars into the bargain. Nor, unless we take a continuing rational view of the price structure for our coal, will the Coal Board be able to formulate a proper investment policy for the industry.
Neither in Appendix 22 of the Select Committee's Report nor in the discussion about Treasury supervision of Coal Board borrowing can one find a clear basis on which to make a rational decision on whether an investment ought to be made or not. Appendix 22 shows varying scales of returns on investments. These are clearly due to the fact that the Coal Board must have invested capital without knowing whether or not it was putting in equipment to meet demands for coal artificially stimulated by a fictitious price structure. I hope, therefore, that the Ministry will take a more sympathetic view than it has done so far of the Select Committee's recommendations, which are a first and important step towards improving the price structure.
If that were done, not only would the investment problems begin to sort themselves out, with savings valuable because there are far two few of them, but a social problem would begin to sort itself out. It is the problem, to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) referred, of the closing of uneconomic pits. In the great scramble for coal which demand stimulated we managed to close fifteen pits. A study of Appendix 22 leads one to wonder whether other and larger pits should not have been closed to make sure that our money was being invested to the best advantage in places where it would secure the best return.
Another object of a price policy should be to protect those affected by changes. When a pit is shut down, community life is changed. Part of the cost of obtaining coal which should be taken into account is the cost of proper treatment of those

917
who have had their livelihoods and places of living changed so drastically. That is the view which is taken not only in this House but in the Coal and Steel Community in Europe.
I come back to the point that we want to see a more rational pricing policy on which our wishes for the future development of the industry must be based. I hope very much that the Ministry, through its spokesman, will give better reasons in reply to this debate than it has given hitherto for rejecting the Select Committee's recommendation, or will find good reasons for accepting it.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. George Sylvester: I listened attentively to the Parliamentary Secretary when he made his opening speech, and while, as a general rule, I do not agree with what is said from the other side of the House, there was one phrase on which I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman. It was on lines along which I had been thinking. If I have his words correctly, the Minister said that it is certainly not true that the production of coal has decreased.
It has been said on many occasions by opponents of the nationalisation of the coal industry that the production of deep-mined coal has gradually decreased, although what the Minister told us today is nothing new. I remember reading, two or three months ago, an extract from a speech made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board in which he pointed out that the production of coal from British mines was the highest in Western Europe and that our prices were certainly the lowest.
A man with the responsibility of the Chairman of the National Coal Board would not make a statement of that kind without due consideration. We have only to look at the Report of the Board which we are now discussing to see the true position. Incidentally, the Report is one year and two months old, so those of us who are speaking about it, except those on the Government Front Bench, are rather behind with our figures.
The fact is that in 1957 the output of all coal was 223·6 million tons, an increase of 1½ million tons over 1956. Of that total 210·1 million tons was from deep mines and 13½ millions tons was from opencast. Output per manshift
918
during the same period was 1·23 tons, the same as in 1956, while output per manshift at the coal face increased from 3·33 tons in 1956 to 3·36 tons in 1957.
Great play has been made in the Press and in speeches about productivity, about the general finances of the Coal Board, and about investing money in the industry and getting the best value for that investment. It is well sometimes to look back. Those of us who have been connected with the industry for well over thirty years can remember many of the things which happened in those days. While we do not want to harp on the past, it is well to look back occasionally.
Since the end of the 1914–18 war up to vesting day the Government twice gave the coal owners subsidies to guarantee them profits. Owing to the lateness of the hour, I will not go into the figures, but that is a well-known fact. Since vesting day, however, right up to the compilation of this Report, the Board has made operating profits. It is true that it shows a loss, but the surplus has been converted into a deficit by payments made to the Ministry of Power under the nationalisation Act.
These payments go to compensate the coal owners for interest on capital, etc., and include capital payments to them for pits which have been closed for well over ten years. Therefore, when the Board is faced with burdens with which its predecessors were never faced with and when its predecessors, on two occasions in the period I have mentioned, received Government subsidies, it is only natural that the profit made by the Board should turn into a deficit.
Another burden which the Board has had to bear is that of surface subsidence. Those of us who live in mining areas have argued for compensation for mining subsidence over a number of years. The tragic thing is that much of this subsidence came about prior to vesting date, and when this House finally agreed that some compensation should be paid for the damage caused, the burden was put upon the Coal Board, although the Board itself had never actually worked the coal underneath the land and had not received the profits from the sale of that coal.
The question of the price of coal in relation to coal produced in other countries in Western Europe has also been raised. During the past ten years,

919
privately-owned mines in Germany and Belgium, which produce nearly 80 per cent. of the coal in the countries in the European Coal and Steel Community, received some Government assistance in some shape or form, yet the coal mining industry in Britain not only produces the cheapest coal and stands on its own feet, but also carries the burden, which I have already mentioned, of imported coal, so that coal may be sold at an economic price in this country.
The public should understand that the British coal mining industry has provided, on the average, £10 million per annum from 1950 to the end of 1957 to enable foreign coal to be brought here and sold at the prices of British coal. The industry itself has had to bear this cost, when some of us have argued, and have suggested by Questions in this House, that it was a Government responsibility. The Government, however, declined to accept the responsibility.
During the years when there was a shortage of coal, from the war right up to about twelve months ago, when the miners could have made exorbitant demands and when anything for which they might have asked would almost have been forced to have been granted, they held their hands and obeyed the advice of their leaders not to be extortionate in their demands, because that might quite easily crush the economy of the country.
I have heard several speeches today on the price of coal, and I have just explained how moderate the miners have been in their demands during the period of shortage. Not so the distributors. Since vesting date, out of 30 increases in coal prices applied for, 22 were direct applications by distributors. It is well known that the Coal Board cannot raise prices except with the authority of the Minister. In fact, to quote the Report of the Select Committee:
"In the last analysis, it is the Minister of Power who says what the public must pay for the coal."
Yet, out of 30 applications to increase prices, the distributors themselves were responsible for 22.
A fortnight ago, I was looking at the financial column of a national newspaper. It is not very often that I do that, because I have never had a great deal of money to invest, but there was one item which
920
struck me. It dealt with the amount of profits which are made by distributors of coal in this day and age. It mentioned the name of the company, and said:
"The company distributes coal and coke, acts as agents for the North-Eastern Division of the National Coal Board … It is a Small company but by no means to be ignored. Its total capital is £100,000, all in 1s. shares, and its consolidated trading profit last year was £383,982, which is nearly four times its capital. Even after Income Tax has been deducted, there is left the substantial sum of £156,652. The fortunate shareholders in this company get a total distribution of 50 per cent. And a year ago they were given one share free for every three shares they held."
I remember plugging the idea, about four or five years ago, that while we had solved the problem of production as a nation, we still left the problem of distribution in the hands of private people who are making profits such as I have just described.
As I have said, the miners, through their leaders, did not, during the years when everything was in their favour, apply for wage increases, as they could have done. Only recently they applied for an increase of 10s. to compensate them for the loss in purchasing power of their wages. The application was turned down by the Board and it went to arbitration. One begins to wonder whether any Government policy or direction behind the scenes influenced the decision at that time.
Opencast coal mining has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) rightly said that coal which is stocked, whether at pitheads or in open quarries, has a psychological effect upon the men in the industry. They are frightened that we shall return to the days between the wars when there was a surplus of coal. It seems ridiculous that we should still further despoil our agricultural resources by producing opencast coal when 28 tons of every 100 are unsaleable.
Surely the sensible thing to do is gradually to run down the opencast operations and not to begin any new ones. I appreciate that the machinery would rust, but I am satisfied that the opencast operations could gradually be run down. It should be remembered that opencast mining was begun only as a war emergency and carried on immediately after the war because of the shortage of fuel. During those years the shortage was such that it did not matter what type of coal we

921
obtained as long as we could find a market for it.
I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, in face of indignation from this side of the House, stuck to his guns and said that opencast mined coal was as good as deep-mined coal, and, therefore, it did not make any difference. He got out of it by saying that the Board's experts had advised him on that. There are hon. Members on this side of the House who have spent a lifetime in the industry and can say with truth that deep-mined coal is much harder than opencast mined coal and will weather better when stacked than opencast coal will.
If there is a surplus of coal at the moment, which everybody admits there must be—we have not got the export markets that we had before the war—what about reducing miners' working hours from seven and a half to seven? Today, the miners are working half an hour longer than they did thirty-five years ago, in spite of the fact that a Royal Commission declared that seven hours was long enough for anybody working in the mines. If supply is greater than demand, then surely the sensible thing to do is to cut half an hour off the working day of miners and thus gradually reduce the supply of coal.
Coal mining is still a most dangerous occupation. It is acknowledged and can be statistically proved that there are at least sixteen times as many accidents in coal mining as in any other industry. While mechanisation has brought its advantages, in its trail have come many more cases of the dreaded disease pneumoconiosis, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) referred. According to the records, every year there are 5,000 fresh pneumoconiosis cases. What a price the men in the industry have to pay for our coal!
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock briefly sketched the way that this disease affects miners. Unfortunately, she referred to the disease affecting old men, but it also affects middle-aged men. A man may have worked in a pit for thirty or forty years, but if he started work, as many did, as a boy of 14 or 15, he is still only in his fifties, and yet he is possibly coughing out his life with no hope of any cure. The old men my hon. Friend mentioned have now left the industry.
922
The National Union of Mineworkers and the Board have planned a pension scheme to be additional to the ordinary State pension. Admittedly, the pension is small, but the Board is to be congratulated on its good sense in the negotiations about it. However, some men retired before the scheme came into being, so they do not receive that pension. The pension fund which has been established does not receive a penny from the Treasury. This is a scheme which is not generally known to the public. However, something must be done about those men who retired too early to benefit from the scheme.
It has been suggested that plants capable of burning oil or coal—plants which can be dual-fired—should be made or encouraged to use coal during this temporary or possibly permanent surplus of coal. As has been said, the trouble with oil as a fuel is that there needs to be only a little trouble in any part of the Middle East, and there is a shortage of oil, as we saw during the Suez episode.
The Government must take their full responsibility, for it is the free-for-all policy that they have pursued in the last few years which is now having an effect upon the mining industry. I warn the Government that the miners will not be the whipping boys, as they were between the wars. It has been suggested by certain people who are members of the party opposite that now is the time for a showdown with the miners, because they have had it too good. I am not suggesting that any responsible person has said that, but it has been said. Those who have said it must bear in mind that the union, through its leaders, will defend the men. I do not want to be aggressive, but I would warn those people that never again will our miners go through what the miners of my generation and older generations had to endure between the wars.
I therefore suggest that the Government should bear in mind the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends and myself. This is the basic industry upon which our whole economy is founded, and it is up to the nation to see that it does not collapse through misdirection, or an attempt to use outworn ideas in running it.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. William Blyton: I have been done the honour, on behalf of the Opposition, of closing this debate on the future of the coal mining industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) outlined the position quite forcibly in a very good speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Flitch) upon his maiden speech. He spoke of things that he knew about, having spent many years in the pits. He spoke very clearly and with great knowledge, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House will look forward to hearing him speak again on this subject.
The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) was Chairman of the Select Committee which investigated the industry, and I had the pleasure of serving under him for over ten months. With one exception, I am quite satisfied about the contents of the Committee's Report. Twelve months ago none of us anticipated that he would have to consider the issues which confront us today in the mining industry. Before the Second World War we were always concerned about the decline in the industry, but since the war we have been faced with entirely different problems. We have been living in an expanding economy—until last year, when we found ourselves in a contracting economy, bringing with it many of the problems that we have considered today.
In examining the present situation, I want to make it clear that we must consider these problems with a sense of responsibility. It would be disastrous for the principles and practices of nationalisation, for which hon. Members on this side of the House have stood for a long time, if we failed to appreciate our continued responsibility for its success. No matter what our critics may say, the nationalisation of the mines has provided this nation with coal and power when it would otherwise have been weakened financially, either by purchases of coal from abroad or a large measure of unemployment in our industrial population.
The men in the industry have received better wages than they could ever have got from the old mine owners. We have benefited to a great degree in safety, health and welfare in this unattractive industry. Because of these factors we cannot disregard the importance of doing
924
our best, even under present conditions, to secure that the industry becomes efficient, and that there is co-operation between everyone connected with it.
There must be mutual co-operation between the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The union must be taken into the confidence of the Board. We cannot expect to solve our problems unless the men are provided with evidence on which they may be able to judge what is best in a given situation. We may appear critical in some respects in this debate, but that attitude is not due to any desire to retract from the principles of nationalised mining. It is an attempt to help to seek a solution to our present-day difficulties.
The new situation is that while for ten years we have been suppliers of coal, now, for the first time since the war, we have to learn to sell it. There are many arguments about the cause of this situation. We agree that external factors are the basis of the present recession, but the Government are not blameless. Their policy to meet world economic difficulties has certainly aggravated the problems confronting us. The credit squeeze, the attempt to create a market of unemployed to make more competition for jobs in industry, has done real damage to the coal industry, and the Government must accept responsibility for some of our problems.
The simple issue is that if we contract full employment we reduce the necessity for a large amount of coal. The industry cannot be prosperous if it is surrounded by unemployed workers from other industries. If, apart from the miners, other members of the working classes are unemployed, that affects the economy, and, in the end, is bound to affect the men and women in the coal industry. Therefore, in my opinion, no one can blame the Coal Board. It did not create the difficulties. As I have said, they came from the state of world economic affairs, accelerated by the policy of our own Government, and the body confronted with this situation therefore sought ways and means to meet the changed circumstances.
I do not intend to deal in detail with the background to this position, but when the mines were nationalised consumption was merely 179½ million tons

925
a year, with exports added; and by 1956 the consumption figure for coal rose to 218 million tons, an increase of 39 million tons a year. On the average, coal consumption went up over 3 million tons each year from 1945 to 1956, and this was a period of full employment. As I said, full employment means increased consumption of coal. During those years an ever increasing quantity of coal was required.
Everyone—the Minister, the Government and the Coal Board—all agreed that future consumption would rise. By 1965, it was expected, the total fuel consumption would amount to 300 million tons of coal, or its equivalent, each year. This was divided as follows: the mining industry to find 240 million tons; atomic energy to find 18 million tons; and oil to meet the gap of 42 million tons. That was the future policy, Now we are faced with coal consumption falling by 5 million tons last year and expected to be 7 million tons less again this year. For years we have been trying to meet consumer needs and now we find a recession in the consumption of coal. It was in this changed situation, with the need to maintain production, that the Board decided to stock large quantities of coal.
I think that in dealing with exports the ground has been covered fairly well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth. All I want to say is that our prospects of getting our markets back in the near future are very bleak. Here the Board must take vigorous action in the stimulation of sales. It must be much more vigorous than it has been in the past. The whole question of over-production is facing not only us, but also America and Europe, and while we must do all we can to export, let us not underestimate the obstacles which we have to face.
We should now face the question of making the most of our indigenous fuel. Efforts must be made to improve our large coal production and to look more closely at the problems of supply for power stations, gasification and the briquetting of small coal for use by the railways and domestic grates. We cannot be complacent about the question of oil, as the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be today. The whole question of the
926
importation of oil must be taken into account if we are to have a fuel policy.
I ask the Paymaster-General: can we afford to spend dollars on oil and to maintain a large defence force to keep the pipelines safe and, at the same time, close our mines as a result of not using the fuel which we have in the ground? We believe that the Government must now look at their policy, seek to secure the maximum use of our fuel and limit the unnecessary oil imports into the country.
Further, in competition with oil the Board must be given the same freedom as the oil companies have. The Board is bound by law not to exercise undue discrimination in price amongst its customers, whereas the oil companies are free to fix their prices and to pick and choose where it suits them. During most of the post-war period, when supplies of fuels of all kinds have been barely adequate to meet the demands of the country, it has been the policy to encourage conversion to oil. Now we must insist that where coal is the natural and economic fuel, it should be used.
If, as the Government say, in the years ahead the country will need much more energy, then it is essential that we should plan ahead now. I believe that the scope for nuclear power to replace coal is limited. Even for electricity generation it has not yet overcome the problems of providing more than base loads economically.
But whereas coal must provide the basic energy requirements of the nation, we must not forget that oil is bound to play an important part. Coal must, therefore, have a fair chance with oil and the industry must also be assured of fair competition. It is not fair competition when it is asked to bear losses on imported coal and other charges which inflate the price of coal when competing with oil. It must be free to fix prices for coal commercially and must not be hampered by restrictions, Parliamentary or otherwise, which no not apply to the oil companies. I shall have something to say about price later.
It is unthinkable that this country should be prepared to base its industries and standard of life upon imported oil, with all the attendant risks, but, in whatever field coal has to compete with oil,

927
then the Coal Board should not be hamstrung while the oil companies are left free to do what they please. Only the Government can help in this matter, and I ask them to treat it as a matter of urgency.
I think that we are now reaching the stage when the stocking of coal will cease. It is impossible to keep teaming coal on the ground, with the cost of putting it there, and lifting it again, with the degradation of the coal and all the deterioration that the coal suffers in the process. This increases the cost by over 13s. 6d. per ton.
The Board also decided to cease recruitment for a period, and this policy is still in existence. As yet there are no signs of relaxation. The Board also stopped imports. Another decision was to close uneconomic pits and to get the men not to work on Saturdays.
I impress upon the Paymaster-General that the effects of these decisions are bound to give rise to anxiety to the people in the coalfields, who have memories of what happened in this industry in years gone by and are now asking themselves whether those years will come back again. Personally, I do not think that the present difficulties indicate a return to those times. If we face the difficulties together, and there is mutual co-operation between all concerned, I believe that many of them can be overcome.
I now want to deal with some of the decisions of the Board that will affect the industry in the future. There are many problems, many of which were touched upon in the Select Committee's Report. The Committee spent a long time inquiring into the industry. Its Report is the first to be issued since the coal mines were nationalised. It contains a great deal of information for hon. Members. Only in one respect do I disagree with the Report, and that is in relation to the importation of coal, should it be necessary in future. It deals with past, present and future investment, manpower, prices, large and small coal, uneconomic pits, mechanisation and competition. Nearly every phase of the industry was examined and embodied in the Report.
At this stage, I should like to pay tribute to my old colleague of the Northumberland mines, Sir James Bowman, and his deputy, Mr. Latham, respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman
928
of the National Coal Board. I regard "Jim" Bowman, whom I have known for over thirty-five years, as a first-class man in his job. He came up the hard way. He worked in the mines. He had a good training in our union and I believe that he is a first-class businessman. I say to the miners that I am confident that he will always try to ensure that the impact of the present economic situation upon mining will not be used to worsen the lives of the men in the mines from whence he came, and that the closing of a colliery will be the last resort.
I want to say a word about uneconomic pits. A responsible person would not say that all pits which are uneconomic should close. It is said that 167 pits are losing over £1 per ton, but the cardinal principle in which I have always believed was that the nationalised industry would enable pits which were uneconomic to be worked. The economic idea behind nationalisation was to pool the resources of the industry and not to determine whether a pit should be closed or worked according to whether it was profitable.
I am not saying that every pit which is now working must continue for ever. Every part of the mining industry is a wasting asset. A colliery is sunk, the coal is taken out, and there must come a day when the pit is closed, because there is no more coal or it is easier to take the coal from another pit. It should not be the policy to close pits to contract production. To close a pit can mean that its resources are lost for ever. It cannot be reopened in the same way as a factory. If, for this reason, there is no work for the men and no other mining work is available for them, many of the skilled miners could be lost to the industry.
Nor must we forget the impact upon a district of the closing of a colliery, with all the social consequences to the people in the area. Ruthless closures of pits can create terrible bitterness among the men. Many uneconomic pits must always be kept working because of the special kind of coal they produce, such as coking coal and anthracite. Furthermore, prices are fixed so that the industry should not show a substantial profit or loss, and average prices are fixed to cover average costs. We must, therefore, view the mines as a whole and not each one as an individual undertaking.

929
The Coal Board told the Select Committee that it intended to deal only with the pits which were practically exhausted. Nevertheless, we must face the unpleasant fact that some uneconomic pits must go. Since 1947, over 200 collieries have been closed, for which the industry has had to pay compensation. These assets have cost us dearly. It was for many of these reasons that the Select Committee said that closure should be done in close consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers, and it is pleasing to note that the Coal Board has agreed to do this. Every case for closure will be examined, all the facts will be placed before the men and everything possible will be done before the last resort of closure is adopted. It is imperative for the union to work with the Board on this issue, as it involves transfers to other areas, and the problem of the disabled is bound to arise in an acute form.
The problem of what is to happen to the disabled men when a colliery closes is of vital importance. At every colliery there are men in what we call light work, men who have been seriously injured and who are able to do only a light job. We have the pneumoconiosis cases and many men who are doing light work for reasons of illness. When a pit is closed, these men will not usually be able to get jobs at the pits to which their able-bodied colleagues can transfer, because the work for which they might be fitted at another colliery is already being done by the disabled in that area. This is where the Government must come to the aid of these areas by introducing light industry to help those who will be left high and dry when a pit is closed.
We have seen derelict mining villages in the past. My own county knows the tragedies of closed collieries, where men of 40 were regarded as too old for work at other collieries and the injured were thrown on to the scrap heap, never to work again. This must not happen. While I am certain that the able-bodied men will be absorbed in other collieries, I say that the Government have an obligation to the disabled men in the mining villages where a pit is closed to see that they are not thrown on the scrap heap.
I now want to deal with recruitment and manpower. According to the latest figures which I have, manpower, since
930
the Coal Board operated its policy, has gone down by 9,600. If there is more coal now than we need, it is very important that unemployment among miners must be avoided. I say to the Paymaster-General that in 1949 there was a recession in coal consumption and the then Minister of Fuel and Power, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), met the National Union of Mineworkers and said to them the same thing as the Coal Board had stated at that time. Its statement was that as we were producing 10 million or 11 million tons of opencast coal, and 11 million tons per year by Saturday working, we should be able to rely on those two cushions in the interests of the miners if there was a recession in consumption or in the demand for coal.
We have always held the view that, by and large, we could avoid unemployment in the industry. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we lose 60,000 men a year by wastage and our youth recruitment is about 20,000 a year. So, each year, either by "green" labour, or by ex-miners, or men coming in from other industries, we have had to find 40,000 a year. So all that we do on this issue is to run down the numbers of our recruitment and maintain our full labour power within the mining industry, thereby preserving the employment of the manpower in the mines.
We are not worried unduly about the cessation of recruitment so long as there is no interference with the right of the men in the industry to go from pit to pit, if they choose. If a man can do better at one pit, and a job is available, we think that he should be free to go there, and we insist on the right of freedom of movement within the industry to our men.
This brings me to a manpower problem which we must take into account. The Fleck Committee's Report is still giving rise to contentious arguments in the pits. We are very concerned about the substantial increases in the administrative staff, particularly at supervisory levels. It is said by the National Union of Mineworkers that, despite the enormous increase, all the evidence establishes beyond doubt that there has been no increase in efficiency, because the test one applies to the coal industry is the difference between its capacity and its

931
achievement, and not all the increases in established personnel have resulted in or promoted efficiency.
If we on our side have to face any consultations with the Board on the closing of the uneconomic pits, there must be an inquiry also as to whether all the appointments made under the Fleck Committee's Report are justifiable. The impression must not gain ground, in the economic circumstances of today, that the established personnel are to be saved while the men have to put up with all the difficulties. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in the established staff since the Fleck Committee's Report was implemented. We are given to believe that the administration is top-heavy, and as we have to face the new problems, which will cause us many difficulties, it is of paramount importance that this is looked at very carefully. The Chairman of the Coal Board stated last year that he would have the fullest possible discussion with the union and the Board on these matters, and he told the Select Committee that he would welcome this, but up to that time he had not heard anything from the union.
I would suggest that both sides now should examine the result of the Fleck Report. It has been in operation a few years now, and the question whether it has brought more efficiency or not can now be determined. A report on that would clear up a good deal of the misgiving and misunderstanding in the coalfields. It would make relationships much happier in the districts and give some proof to the men that they were not to bear all the sacrifices in this new situation.
Opencast working has been fairly well discussed today and I shall leave those arguments as my hon. Friends have put them.
I come to the question of prices. The Select Committee came to the unanimous decision that the time had come when the gentleman's agreement ought to end and that the way in which prices are determined should be defined. I was a bit surprised today when I heard the decision of the Government from the Parliamentary Secretary.
We may see from Appendix III of the Report how the prices, under both the Labour Government and the Tory Government, have operated. I do not want to deal with prices policy extensively, but
932
I am convinced that the coal industry can be made a battledore and shuttlecock of politics, especially in the realm of prices.
In 1947, the Board had a £7 million deficiency. In 1955, the year of the Election, it was a £19·6 million deficiency. There is no doubt that the fact that the Board was not given the increased prices it asked for when it asked for them has affected its finances. In 1953 the Board asked for an increased price to liquidate its deficiency and to provide a reserve fund, which I consider very necessary if it is to do any sound financing at all. This was refused. Our high payment for interest rates could have been lower had the Government allowed this increase.
The year 1955 was Election year. The increase for which the Board asked was not given until 7th July that year, after the Election was over. The Board asked for 11 per cent. in February and was given 18 per cent. increase in July. There is no doubt that the Board was left high and dry, with unprecedented imports losing £2 10s. a ton, and on top of that we had the new wages structure, which was costing several million pounds.
I appreciate the argument that the Board cannot have full freedom on prices, as it is a national monopoly, but, nevertheless, it cannot be left in the intolerable position it is in today. Either we say that the industry is a social service and not run on a commercial basis, or if it is to be criticised each year on its balance sheet and not have the same freedom as free private enterprise, we are not being fair to the Coal Board.
If the Board, in the years which are gone, had had freedom, the same freedom as commercial undertakings, it could have made huge profits on the Continent by selling its coal, but full employment would have been sacrificed here. There is too much of a hole-and-corner business in this fixing of prices. The Minister exercises powers under the gentlemen's agreement because the Board must come to him to get a price increase. We never know on what basis he either gives or rejects a price increase.
We suggest that there should be an arrangement whereby if it is the Minister who issues the directions he shall take the responsibility, and if it is the Coal Board it shall carry its responsibility as well. I hope that the Minister will give every consideration to this important problem.

933
Relations in the coal industry today are worse than I have known them since 1947. This has arisen from the fact that the former Chancellor issued an edict to arbitrators that if they gave increases they would not be financed in the nationalised sector by him. I raised this matter on 6th February and concluded my speech by saying:
"Unions will now refuse to go through the process of arbitration. Therefore if, because of the Government's decisions and statements, arbitrators make refusal after refusal in the light of circumstances of this character the Government must not be surprised if unions ignore their arbitration agreement and go back to a war of attrition, which means the use of the strike weapon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1957; Vol. 581 c. 1437.]
We have arbitrated on agreements for years, but the miners' conference last week decided to end the compulsory arbitration agreement. The men in the coalfield believed that the Government dictated to the arbitrators and that their case for wages would not be determined on its merits.
As to the fuel policy which ought to be put into operation, we believe that there should be no attempt to worsen the wages or working conditions of the men because of our present difficulties and that, where practicable, efforts should be made to improve their standards. There should be a restriction now on opencast working. There should be a cessation or suspension of work on new sites and a progressive retrenchment, as it becomes possible, on existing sites. As a short-term measure, the control of recruitment should be accepted, but control should in no way result in losing experienced miners to the industry or in tying them to their existing posts. The Coal Board should take such steps as to ensure that pit closures are the last resort, and no attempt should be made to close pits if such closures result in unemployment. New industries should also be brought into the areas to give work to the disabled.
A policy should be brought into being immediately designed to secure the maximum use of our indigenous fuel and the limiting of unnecessary oil imports. There should be a drive for vigorous action and co-ordination by the Coal Board's marketing, production, and scientific departments. The Board should be left free to fix prices in competition with oil
934
and should be given the chance of fair competition. There should be a drive for the greatest possible efficiency, and an investigation into the circumstances of the rise in non-productive manpower and staff since the Fleck Committee's Report was implemented.
We consider that there ought to be greater economy and efficiency in coal production. As a means of stimulating British industry in general the Government should seek to extend East-West trade. As a matter of urgency, the Board should accelerate the introduction of a large-scale briquetting industry and the Gas Council should be encouraged to bring forward as speedily as possible the gasification of small coal. The Board should be encouraged to enter into longterm commitments in the markets of the world and to maintain its influence on those markets. The Government should now embark on an expansion in our economy, as this must come about if mining is to be helped.
We on this side of the House will do all we can to try to solve the problems that face us in the industry, because we realise that we can occupy the benches opposite after the next General Election and we want a flourishing mining industry, full employment and an expanding economy.
9.29 p.m.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has covered the whole of the coal mining industry in its present situation with a great experience which I could not hope to rival. He has put forward so many suggestions that I do not think I could carry them all in one speech, but all of them will be most certainly examined with the care that is deserved by suggestions from the hon. Member on a matter of which he knows so much.
May I first apologise to the House for not being here as much as I would have wished to be today, since I am winding up the debate. As the House is aware, there have been some formidable things happening today, and hon. and right hon. Members will understand why it has not been easy to be present. In so far as I have missed any speeches, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given me a note of the main points made by the speakers.

935
I also wish to say how glad I was to be here to listen to the maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch). It is always extremely interesting to hear a man who speaks with so much intimate and recent knowledge of his subject, and I can say for those of us on this side of the House that we shall certainly look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman on many occasions. He raised the important point of new uses for coal. I can assure him that the National Coal Board, the Department, and the scientists engaged in both organisations are well aware of the importance of developing coal, not merely as a source of energy and heat, but also as a source of chemicals and many other things. The chemistry of coal and the development of chemicals from our coal resources is clearly of great importance. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that much work is going on. I am sure he is equally aware that a little prodding from the House of Commons helps the work of Ministers, Departments and others.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening speech, covered the main ground of the present situation in the coal industry and the general policy problems facing it. I shall hope in what I say to reply to the points made in the debate and to put them into a coherent sequence. May I start by echoing what has been said by so many speakers in congratulating the Select Committee and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) its Chairman, on the remarkable nature of its Report. It is a remarkable thing that such a Report could receive so wide a measure of agreement in this House. On some previous occasions it would have been almost unthinkable to have a report from a Select Committee on the coal industry which would meet with such general approval. This reflects credit not only on the members of the Select Committee but on those who gave evidence before it. It must be a fairly frightening thing for the most seasoned people to give evidence for the first time before a Select Committee of this House, and we are indebted to them for the clear and helpful way in which their evidence was laid before it.
In referring to personalities, may I at the same time echo what was said by the previous speaker about both the Chairman
936
and Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board, with whom I have had the pleasure of working now for some months. It has been a very great experience for me to meet people of such capacity, who have such a wholehearted devotion to the interests of their industry.
One or two people have asked us about our fuel policy. It was suggested that we have not got a fuel policy. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in my absence whether our fuel policy was still the same as it was. Certainly the basic principles of our fuel policy are exactly the same as they were when I tried to state them in the debate of April last year.
They are threefold. First, we base our plans on providing sufficient energy to meet the energy requirements of British industry and of the British economy generally. If we have to plan for a margin, we should plan for a margin of safety. We are at the present moment embarrassed, probably for the first time for many years, with excessive stocks of coal. I would think that would be the least of any Government's embarrassments. It is far better to plan on the generous than on the narrow side.
The second point of our policy is that we believe in giving freedom to the user to choose the form in which he wishes to take his fuel, whether it be coal, oil, electricity or gas. The third point is that we wish to see our indigenous sources of energy providing the maximum production they can for the economy and for the balance of payments, although, of course, in the light of the economic cost of so doing. Clearly, although it is an advantage to use indigenous resources rather than to import, if that is done at an excessive cost we do ourselves harm on balance and it is not an economy.
In the debate last year, to which I have referred, I quoted some estimates, to which I think the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and also the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring have referred. They were the best estimates we could make of the likely national demand for fuel or energy in 1965, and these estimates, of course, are liable, as everyone knows, to a very considerable margin of error. The best estimate I could then give the House was that in 1965 we should need something like 300 million tons of

937
coal equivalent, plus another 10 million tons for the scale of exports which we hope to see happening at that time.
Certainly, I see no reason at present to withdraw from those estimates. They were based on a certain rate of expansion of the national product which, certainly at the present moment, is not taking place, but I would ask hon. and right hon. Members not to assume that the average for the period will necessarily be lower because in the initial period we have not been achieving any expansion. I do not think it is true to say that the economy has been contracting, as one hon. Member said. There has been a general level of expansion. I think the word used by one hon. Member was stagnation, and I have heard so many different definitions of stagnation in the last few months that I hesitate to use the word now.
The figures we were working on were of 310 million tons of coal equivalent in 1965, which means 60 million tons more than in 1955, and only last year we were hoping that about 20 million tons of that would come from an expansion in coal production and coal consumption. I have said that at the moment we see no reason to depart from these estimates, and certainly no reason to change our hope that there will be this expansion in the production and consumption of coal.
What has happened recently has been a very great change in emphasis from production for production's sake to production on an economic basis. The National Coal Board has become very cost-conscious, not that I think it is in any way its fault that it was not cost-conscious before, because it was rightly concentrating, as it was asked to do, on production. Now, the Board has reacted to the change of circumstances and has become clearly conscious of the importance of having regard to costs. The fall in the demand for coal, which has so much underlain the discussion this afternoon, is, I agree with the right hon. Member for Blyth, a passing phase. I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possible needs of the future, which was clearly designed to help to maintain the morale of the industry, as we should all wish to do.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary rather tended to come under fire from two sides, partly for being too
938
optimistic and partly for being too pessimistic, which confirms my view that he probably was exactly right—"Not too much, not too little, but just right," as I think the advertisement says. I agree that this should be regarded as a passing phase, but the extent of the phase and its duration must depend very much on the competitive performance of the coal industry. It is significant that while in the last year or two the total demand for energy has remained fairly stable, the demand for oil has been going up and that for coal going down, and that must surely reflect the competitive position of the two industries.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that coal prices have in the last five years risen a great deal more than oil prices; and there is the other important factor of convenience, to which the right hon. Member for Blyth referred. I think that convenience in this context of consumption means much more than the convenience of the householder. It is the convenience of the industrialist or the manager of a works, and there are many factors, as well as rising prices and convenience in use, which have caused the competition between coal and oil to become more severe.
If the coal industry is to come out of this passing phase, in the general context of the demand for fuel as the background to it, it is important that we should keen in mind the competitive position of the coal industry, as compared with the oil industry. It is in the nation's interests, just as it is in the interests of the coal industry, that the competitive position of coal as compared with oil should improve. In that way, we shall see more consumption of coal, but not at the cost of imposing restrictions on the right of the user to select the fuel which he thinks is most efficient for his own purpose.
One or two alternatives have been put forward today. For example, references have been made to a reduction in opencast mining—references mainly by hon. Members who are in favour of substantially reducing opencast production. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) took a slightly different view. It is important not to think that one can turn opencast operations on and off like a tap when the total demand for fuel

939
falls or rises. At the moment, my noble Friend is being more critical and more selective in respect of applications to work opencast sites. Some applications which in previous circumstances would have been accepted have been deferred indefinitely. There is a definite tendency to be much more restrictive and selective about giving permission for opencast working.
I do not think it is wise to go quite as far as some hon. Members have suggested, for more than one reason. There is the reason of profitability, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. As he suggested, it is not the only reason. It seems a fairly important reason when so much attention is concentrated on the financial position of the Board, but there is also the nature of the operation and the amount of capital equipment involved, to which the right hon. Member for Blyth referred. There is also the point that I think was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Easington, that we shall in future need large quantities of opencast coal as the expansion of demand for coal, which we all hope to see, takes place. For all those reasons, we are wise to proceed cautiously in any restriction of opencast production. I am not in any way disagreeing with all that is often said from both sides of the House about the unpleasant nature of the operation to those who live in the district where it is going on.
The next suggestion was that the imports of oil should be restricted. I find myself at variance here with the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring and other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring said that there should be fair competition between coal and oil. I agree, but I suggest that he is putting a little too much emphasis on the the commercial freedom of the oil companies in their quotation of prices. Certainly it can be argued that they have a more flexible position than the National Coal Board has, but it is easy to exaggerate the effect of that on competition between coal and oil. On the other hand, it could be argued that the Board has certain advantages which the oil companies have not in access to capital on preferential terms and so on. Generally speaking, I am sure the arguments are very strong against restricting oil imports and the right of choice of the consumer.
940
First, there is the cost of fuel. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, in this country we have a great interest in ensuring that our industries get their fuel at the lowest possible cost. Secondly, we have a very great interest in international trade in upholding the principle of the freest possible flow of goods. If we were to adopt a policy of putting restrictions on the import of a commodity because it was competing too vigorously with our own home product, we should be undermining one of the main principles on which our general commercial policy is based. Therefore, there are very great dangers in any attempt to restrict artificially the consumption of oil.
The Government have made two moves in recent months which affect the probable consumption of small coal over the next seven or ten years. The first is the reduction in the purchase of oil by the Central Electricity Generating Board for the power stations. That has been reduced about as much as was consonant with the contracts. I think I remember the right hon. Member for Blyth saying that it would not be right to try to break contracts which had been entered into. I believe that means an increase in the potential coal consumption of the electricity industry of about 3 million tons a a year. The rephasing of the nuclear programme has added another 3 million tons. Taken together, those two mean an increase in consumption of about 6 million tons of small power station coals over what has otherwise been envisaged.
It is clear that there has been no escape in recent months from some temporary reduction in output. I suggest to the House that what the Coal Board has been doing has been the right thing, to reduce production on a temporary basis with an eye to be ready to expand again when demand arises and, equally, with an eye on the interests of the men employed in the industry. The Board has chosen wisely in choosing methods of reducing output which will not bear heavily on the men employed in the industry, and which will give it the maximum flexibility to meet rising demand for coal when rising demand returns.
The main methods which the Board has adopted include slowing down recruitment, or selective stopping of recruitment. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring,

941
with his experience in the industry, felt that that was a successful method to tackle this present circumstance. In a way, it is a piece of good fortune that the wastage in the industry is so much that total manpower can be adjusted without having to turn people out of work. There is also the cessation of Saturday work which, I gather, both sides of the industry have for some time felt to hold possible advantages.
There is also the closing of uneconomic pits, to which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths), and other hon. Members referred. I am glad of the opportunity once again to say that the effects of this policy should not be exaggerated, because it does not involve many pits. The number of uneconomic pits involved this year is fifteen. In this year already, nineteen have been closed as a result of the normal process of exhaustion. As has been rightly said, more than 200 pits have been closed for this reason since vesting day. That is a natural process. The additional fifteen pits are to be closed, not because they are absolutely exhausted, but because they are uneconomic. They will not add much to the problem.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: Are they smaller pits employing a small number of men?
Mr. Maudling: By and large, yes. The total number of miners to be affected is 3,000. I imagine that the older men will retire, and apart from those it is expected that all but a few hundred will be able to get other work in the coal industry. Of course, these things will be done with the fullest consultation between the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and I understand that compensation will be paid to those men, as in every case of redundancy because of reconstruction. I understand, however, that this matter has not yet been settled between the Board and the union, although it is the intention that matters should be handled on that basis.
There will be the fullest consultation and all facilities will be made available by the Coal Board and by the Ministry of Labour and others to help where pits are closed for that or for reasons of exhaustion. I am glad of the opportunity to state that, because it is possible for these things to be exaggerated and for
942
there to be concern which is not fully justified.
I want to refer to exports to which many right hon. and hon. Members have referred, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Blyth. I do not quite know what the attitude of the Government is thought to be. There seems to be some impression that we are stopping exports. Far from that being the case, the Government and the Board are extremely anxious to see exports increased. However, as has been recognised already, circumstances in Europe are extremely difficult. Europe, where our traditional purchasers are, has large stocks of coal and has long-term contracts with the Americans. We must recognise that Atlantic freight rates have fallen from about £6 to a little over £1 a ton and that the Poles are cutting prices in a big way. They are in a position to cut prices in a big way, but we should be wary of indulging in too much cut price competition unless we are quite sure where it will lead.
The main point seems to be that the Coal Board should offer some guarantee of continuity of supply. That is a very difficult thing to do. In 1955, exports had to be cut back because of the balance of payments position. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to remember that at that time we were importing coal for dollars and to import coal for dollars and to sell it against European currencies was not a very easy thing to do when facing a serious balance of payments situation. In a situation where there was convertibility of sterling that difficulty would not arise, but the party opposite has never urged upon us the advisability of embarking rapidly upon that policy.
In 1955, there was a very heavy drain upon our balance of payments in the dollar cost of imported coal. In 1958, the situation is certainly different, and the Coal Board is anxious to enter into long-term contracts for the export of coal. But there are two sides to the question. It would be quite wrong for us to undertake to export so many millions of tons of coal a year and to get no guarantee in exchange. We should be supplying only when the market was scarce and would have no sales when the market

943
was easy. These must be balanced contracts. Secondly, we must be clear that if we succeed in landing many long-term contracts we shall not find ourselves again in the position of having to import substantial quantities of coal in order to meet a deficit which might arise at home.
In those circumstances, I would have thought that coal prices would be high and that, relatively, the cost of the coal we imported from America to make up our deficiency might be much higher than we would continue to get under a long-term contract. I say this not because I think it is wrong to go in for long-term selling but to show that there are considerable difficulties in re-asserting our position in the coal export market. I can assure my hon. Friends who are interested in this matter that neither the Government nor the Coal Board has any doubts about the great desirability of restoring our coal export trade and as to the importance, for that purpose, of giving the greatest possible assurance, of a continuity of supply.
The question of a gentleman's agreement was raised by many speakers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring and the right hon. Member for Easington. This is clearly not an easy matter upon which to reach a decision. As the House is aware, the Government have felt that at this point it would not be right to accept the views of the Select Committee. We feel that it is a great pity to start a system of directions if we can possibly operate without them. We believe that there are great disadvantages in a system of that kind—disadvantages to the close and constant relations between the Board and the Minister which must be maintained if this nationalisation system is to be a success.
I recognise that there are arguments on both sides, but I think that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring was wrong in referring to this as a hole-and-corner method. It is admitted that if the Coal Board disagrees with the advice tendered to it by a Minister it is entitled to publish that fact, and it does so.
Mr. Blyton: Can the right hon. Gentleman visualise the Coal Board fighting a Minister?
Mr. Maudling: I was under the impression that the Coal Board had recently made clear its disagreement on a certain point. Its members are men of substance, and long may they remain so. It is not correct to describe this as a hole-and-corner method.
The real point is the constitutional one. The practical position is that, under the gentleman's agreement, if the Coal Board wishes to increase the price of coal, it undertakes not to do so without consulting the Minister. The Minister then explains to the Board, as he should, what he considers to be the national interest. It must be remembered that there are two possible conflicting interests here—the general national interest in the price of coal and the statutory duty of the Coal Board to balance its accounts, taking one year with another. It is a situation in which there may be a clash of interests, but there would not be very much practical effect in substituting, for the present system, where the Minister expresses his opinion informally to the Coal Board, a system whereby he does so formally, by means of a direction. That would be the only effect of carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee.
Sir T. Low: Surely my right hon. Friend is wrong in saying that that would be the only effect. There would be one more effect. As things stand now, it is a question between the Coal Board and the Minister whether the gentleman's agreement goes on. If the Select Committee's view is adopted, it becomes the statutory duty of the Minister to have the last say about prices, and he would be able to give up that statutory duty only with the permission of Parliament. At the moment, he can give up his interest in prices altogether by private arrangement with the Coal Board. That was one of the things to which the Select Committee objected.
Mr. Maudling: I think it is certainly true that he could give up his interest. But I cannot conceive that any Government in present circumstances could abdicate its interest in the price of coal. I think I am right in saying that while the gentleman's agreement continues, as the Government hope and trust that it will continue, the practical effect of the suggestion made would be as I was outlining.

945
I was going to say to my right hon. Friend that we did not reach this decision without great consideration, because it is a fundamental point in the relations between Ministers and nationalised industries. We reached our decision because we were convinced that in the long run the best interests of the industry and the public will be served by maintaining the present system; that there would be considerable danger involved in going over to a system in which there was more emphasis on statutory direction and less emphasis on informal and regular consultation.
A number of other points were raised by various speakers. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring referred again to the Fleck Report and the recommendation about the number of supervisory staff. I think that sometimes the Fleck Committee's recommendations are rather unfairly criticised. The Board has been applying them selectively and carefully, and in many cases it finds that it gets good results. For example, there is the question of centralised purchasing and that sort of thing, which has provided considerable economies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster asked about the promised Statutory Instrument. As I have said before, that will be available in the autumn.
Mr. Nabarro: I cannot recall that my right hon. Friend has ever said that before. The fact is that we were promised a Statutory Instrument in 1956 on an annual basis, which means that the Government are now three years in arrear. Shall we have a Statutory Instrument for three years?
Mr. Maudling: I am sorry. I was not present when my hon. Friend spoke. I thought he was referring to a Statutory Instrument on borrowing no more than a certain amount for a given year—
Mr. Nabarro: I was.
Mr. Maudling: If it is a question of borrowing for a given year, I cannot understand how it can be more than for a given year. But obviously I have not understood what my hon. Friend has in mind.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) referred to the question of chronic bronchitis. I have taken
946
advice on this matter, and I am told that it is impossible to distinguish between the occupational complaint and the non-occupational complaint. But there is a high incidence among miners unrelated to pneumoconiosis. The main cause of chronic bronchitis in the industry is gas, dust and fumes.
I have endeavoured to deal with some of the matters which were raised during the debate. I will see that points which I have omitted or have not understood—like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster—are put forward and properly deliberated on. I think it should be an encouragement to the industry and all who work in it that we have had this Report from the Select Committee, and also this debate, which has ranged so wide and gone so deep into the very baffling problems concerning this basic industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts) and of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1957.

SCOTLAND (HYDRO-ELECTRIC BOARD SCHEME)
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 30) Confirmation Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958. No. 885), dated 22nd May, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th June, be annulled.
I put this Motion on the Order Paper last Wednesday morning. That was the concluding point of a lengthy correspondence between the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Probably the correspondence would have continued had it not been for the vote in this House on matters of Privilege on Tuesday evening. I should not have liked to think that any part of my correspondence had been passed on to the Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I am, therefore, resorting to my parliamentary prerogative in the most constitutional form this evening by moving a Motion to annul this Order.
But there are other considerations. This is not a parochial Scottish issue. This

947
is a matter of an expenditure of £14½ million by a nationalised industry—the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—the whole of the funds for which are provided by Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, as amended by the Nationalised Industries Loans Act, 1958, and perpetuated by the provisions of Clause 32 of the Finance Bill, which is before the House at present.
Further, nothing which I shall say this evening should be interpreted as derogatory in any way to Scotland's essential need for increasing electric generating power facilities. That I recognise as being essential. My estimate of the increasing demand in Scotland is about 10 per cent. per annum—in other words, the demand in Scotland doubling in a single decade.
Where the controversy exists, having regard to the essential capital investment requirement of the entire nation, is on the correct and the most economic means of providing these additional power resources. I believe that the method proposed in the Order is unnecessarily expensive and likely to be uneconomic and that it may well be criticised by my hon. Friends and myself as being extravagant. It is that extravagance which I attack this evening. I have consulted Mr. Speaker on how far I can go on a rather restricted Order of this kind, and he tells me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as long as I do not develop in detail the arguments for the alternative resources, I may refer to them in passing.
May I say a word or two about the essential data of the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack Hydro-Electric project? It is to cost £140 per kW. installed, it is to operate at only 29 per cent. load factor, it is to have a total capacity of 102,000 kW. installed, and the cost is to be £14¼, million.
There were objections to this scheme, in accordance with the statutory procedure under the 1943 Act, and a public inquiry was held in Edinburgh from 9th to 13th December, 1957, under the chairmanship of Mr. R. S. Johnson, Q.C. The objections on that occasion were almost entirely of an amenities and fisheries character. They dealt with the salmon fisheries of the River Farrar, spawning on the tributaries of the River Farrar and the amenities and scenery in Strathfarrar. The Report makes perfectly clear,
948
in the Explanatory Memorandum, that the inquiry did not deal with the economic and financial issues. Further, it excluded all considerations of nuclear power. I quote from Mr. R. S. Johnson's report:
"He did not attempt to assess the contribution that might be made by nuclear power."
That is to be found in paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Cmnd. 408.
This evening I seek to deal with those financial and economic issues having regard to three considerations: first, the onset of nuclear power since we last debated a hydro-electric project on a Statutory Instrument; secondly, the markedly changed coal supply position, notably of very small and poor quality coal used for power station generation; and, thirdly, the employment position in Scotland, and notably in the City of Dundee, to which I shall refer in a moment. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) in his place.
The alternatives on which I propose to dwell this evening are a combination of pumped storage, using the water referred to in the hydro-electric scheme, worked in parallel with a nuclear power station. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) brought me welcome but totally unexpected support at Question Time two weeks ago. I quote from Column 1059 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st July, in which the right hon. Gentleman is reported as having said:
"Is not the Under-Secretary aware that this is probably the finest justification for a hydroelectric scheme—that it should be used in conjunction with pumped storage and the use of that atomic electricity that is produced during the night but which would otherwise be useless? Would it not be wise to publish a White Paper, or something of that nature, that would give a complete picture? The public are very interested in this matter"—
now come the operative words; praise indeed from the right hon. Gentleman—
"and I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has raised a very important question."
He is doing so this evening. The right hon. Gentleman then continued:
"… But the hon. Gentleman"—
referring to the Joint Under-Secretary—
"does not seem to have grasped the point".
I found that he had not grasped the point as well.

949
"A particular scheme is one thing, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster has raised the principle of whether or not the Government's new hydro-electric schemes should be developed in conjunction with nuclear power. It would seem that some explanation ought to be given to the House, apart from what hon. Members can find out for themselves when a particular scheme comes along."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1958: Vol. 590, c. 1059.]
I heartily endorse the words of the right hon. Gentleman. I feel sure that nothing that he may contribute to the debate this evening will in any way detract from the important pronouncement he made on that occasion, which entirely supports my argument.
I should now like to say a word about the labour position. If one builds an expensive hydro-electric station in the far north—and this is a long way north; it is well to the north-west of Inverness—little local labour is available for the purpose. It is quite insufficient for the needs of the project.
Mr. John MacLeod: The population is small, too.
Mr. Nabarro: I will come to that point in a moment. I wish to put the matter in proper perspective.
It is true that there are a few hundred unemployed over a wide area within range of the site of the hydro-electric proposal. Generally, it would be expected to bring in imported labour from the south of Ireland, which would then be housed at high cost in hutments in the extreme north. A proposal has already been turned down and deferred on capital investment grounds for building a base load station on the Firth of Tay within a few miles of Dundee where there is chronic unemployment among males at present.
There are no fewer than 3,259 males unemployed in Dundee according to the last census taken two or three weeks ago. It is those men who ought to be employed on a base load station at the Firth of Tay. They are readily transportable from their homes in Dundee. The site has been surveyed and approved, but the proposal has been deferred on capital investment grounds. It could either be a coal or nuclear station, but it would be a base load station. It would work in conjunction with a pumped storage station in the Highlands. But use should be made of that concentration of unemployed male labour in Dundee first rather than
950
import large quantities of labour from the south of Ireland to be put in huts a couple of hundred miles away to the north.
I am not alone in holding these views. It is an extraordinary thing that the Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board holds the same views. He said so. [Interruption.] I wish my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary would not snort. I will willingly give way to him, but he must not make bovine noises from the Treasury Bench. The Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board shares my views in this matter.
We have had a lot of reference today to the valuable Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. That same Select Committee investigated the affairs of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and gave it a very good and clean bill of health in general matters of development. I readily concede that. But it investigated very closely the matter of pump storage. The right hon. Thomas Johnston gave evidence on this point. He said:
"On our schemes up to date the hydro-schemes have cost, in pounds per kilowatt installed, £175 or thereabouts. The latest nuclear power stations are going to cost something very nearly the same when you take the first supply of fuel into account, in fact, it comes to about £170 per kilowatt, so in that respect there is very little difference. But compared with coal generation, there is a big difference. We are going to find it necessary to provide more capital for this nuclar programme and I think it is causing a great deal of concern as to where this extra capital is to be found. Now, pumped storage, if it were adapted, does strangely enough cost only £30 to £40 a kilowatt and it seems to us, anyhow, that there is at least a way of making more use of the nuclear power you are putting in and at the same time saving in capital cost. That is one of the things that we are turning our attention to because we do have favourable sites for pumped storage. It may mean bringing the power quite a long way, because unless we put in our own nuclear station we may have to import it from the South Board. If they put in their Hunterston station and they have more power than they want at night, we can take it from them and sell it back to them the next day at a time when they are desperate to get the power to meet the demand."
In paragraph 276, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) put this question to Mr. Thomas Johnston:
"Who have you got to consult to go on with a pumped storage scheme?"

951
Mr. Thomas Johnston replied:
"As far as consultation is concerned, we cannot produce the energy that is needed to pump the water up, we must get that from someone who has got the nuclear power available at night. That is the first thing. May I put it this way: we are willing to process the electricity for anybody who is wanting it processed, that is to say, we will convert it from what we call night power to peak power and we will do that for them, so that unless we get someone willing for us to do the processing then, of course, it does not go ahead."
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) then interposed:
"That somebody must, of course, be the South of Scotland Board or the Central Electricity Authority?"
Mr. Thomas Johnston—here are the operative words—replied:
"Yes, there is no limitation on the distance.…"
In other words, it is possible to have a pumped storage station costing only £30 to £40 per kW installed in the far north using the night power for pumping the water up from the Hunterston station in the far South of Scotland and in the evidence of Mr. Thomas Johnston distance is no obstacle whatever.
I promised not to develop the nuclear alternative in too much detail, but let me say this. The nuclear power station at Hunterston will be there already. It will be completed in 1963, long before the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack proposal will be completed. Therefore, I want to know—does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My hon. Friend has anticipated that the Strathfarrar scheme will be completed three and a half years after it is started. If, therefore, it is started this year, it will be completed by 1962.
Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend is not grasping the point. It would not be a conventional hydro-electric station. It should be a pumped storage station in that locality. That would cost only £30 to £40 per kW installed, being one-quarter of the cost of my hon. Friend's conventional station at Strathfarrar and Kilmorack. Due to the lower cost, it would entail much less labour and material and could be completed much more quickly.
My case is that the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
952
Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), have in the light of the evidence made a specific recommendation to the effect that pumped storage should be developed in Scotland in conjunction with nuclear stations as a cheaper and more effective alternative to conventional hydro-electric stations.
Mr. John MacLeod rose—
Mr. Nabarro: Let me finish. The conventional hydro-electric station at Strathfarrar and Kilmorack will cost £14½ million. If we had the alternative which I am proposing—that is, a pumped storage station—the capital cost entailed would be no more than £3½ million. As the Hunterston Station will be there already, idling overnight anyway, it follows that the true comparison of cost is as between the pumped storage alternative, which I welcome, at £3½ million, as compared with the conventional station, to which the Statutory Instrument relates, at £14¼ million. As the difference of £10·75 million is to be found overwhelmingly by the English taxpayer under the provisions of Clause 42 of the Finance Bill, 1958, it is extremely appropriate and propitious that an English Member should protest against this unwonted extravagance in the far north.
Mr. John MacLeod: What would be the cost of production in this scheme as opposed to the hydro-electric scheme?
Mr. Nabarro: The cost of operation would be approximately the same. There would be no economy to be derived by a conventional station. The evidence adduced not only before the Select Committee but elsewhere is that the three alternative methods—first, a conventional hydro-electric station of the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack type; secondly, a nuclear station or, thirdly, the pumped storage station working in conjunction with a nuclear station—all have costs of operation approximately equivalent; but by far the most economical in terms of capital investment is the third alternative of a pumped storage station working in conjunction with the idling Hunterston station, as it will be, during the night hours.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Will my hon. Friend give me the evidence on which he bases his supposition that the Hunterston station will be idling overnight?
Mr. Nabarro: The Hunterston station has been designed as a base load station. It will operate on an 80 per cent. load factor. It has not yet been directly linked to any particular pumped storage scheme, so I asked my hon. Friend last week whether he would tell the House what was the total kilowattage surveyed for pumped storage scheme in the whole of the Highlands. The answer I got was that it is 1,600,000 kW installed, sixteen times as much as the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack proposal, so it would have to be argued by my hon. Friend—and as this is going to be, I think, his line of reply—that there are quite inadequate facilities from resources for pumped storage stations in the Highlands. There are ample pumped storage facilities available amounting to 1,600,000 kW installed in aggregate, and at Loch Awe alone, there is a potential capacity of 400,000 kW installed, already surveyed.
Thus in aggregate there is fifteen times as much as the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack proposal, available for pumped storage, and they could easily be linked to Hunsterton, which is not already fully occupied, in parallel with pumped storage stations. Even if it were, there are the other base load stations in Scotland, which are idling at night and not using their power. The total occupation of these extremely expensive capital investments by the nation is a primary preoccupation of mine and ought to be a primary preoccupation of all interested in the problems of scarcity of capital for investment.
I want to say, first, on grounds of economy in capital cost, that the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack project should be scrapped and a pumped storage scheme working in parallel with the nuclear power project at Hunterston or elsewhere substituted for it.
Secondly, on grounds of employment of men, notably in the Dundee area, a new base load station should be built there instead of the Strathfarrar and Kilmorack installation.
Thirdly, on the grounds of operating costs, which are roughly equal by any of the alternatives to which I have referred, my case is justified.
Fourthly, on the grounds of efficiency since nuclear power is certain and hydro-electric power has an
954
element of doubt, as witness the very grave drought a couple of years ago when a substantial amount of electricity had to be imported from the south of Scotland and completely deranged the finances of Mr. Thomas Johnston's Board. I invite the House to reject this preposterously extravagant Strathfarrar and Kilmorack project and to support my Motion this evening.
10.20 p.m.
Sir David Robertson: I beg to second the Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
I, too, oppose this latest scheme of the Hydro-Electric Board for several substantial reasons. The House of Commons has exercised hardly any control whatsoever over this Board. We had three hours on 27th January of this year for the first time to debate the Report and Accounts of this Board, which was created in 1943 and which has spent some £176 million of public money. We are asked tonight to approve a scheme which is estimated to cost £14¼ million.
Before the House can pass judgment on this it should know what estimates have been made and laid before Parliament for other schemes which have been completed and other schemes which are uncompleted. There have been twelve schemes completed since the Board was created. The House was told they were going to cost £21 million. They actually cost £44 million. I will give one or two examples.
There was the Sloy, Lochalsh (Nostie Bridge) and Morar scheme estimated to cost £4,600,000. It cost £8,870,000. There was a smaller one at Fannich estimated to cost £960,000 but which at the finish cost £3½ million. Another, the Mulladoch-Fasnakyle-Affric scheme, estimated to cost £4,800,000 on completion cost £9,780,000. A scheme at Lawers estimated to cost £2,850,000 on completion cost £5,910,000.
I will give no more. Those are enough for the House to judge the kind of thing we are being asked to approve tonight. This is not our money. It is the people's money, nearly £200 million of it.
There are eleven schemes under construction, and they have been under construction for years. During that time almost £100 million of capital has been

955
wholly unremunerative. Interest has been paid, but not one penny of revenue has come in on these eleven schemes. I will give no details beyond stating that there was an estimated figure put before Parliament of a total of £68½ million. Some of these schemes may have been completed now, but on 5th March of this year, when this statement was prepared for me by the Scottish Office, the estimate had risen from £68 million, which Parliament approved, to £98 million.
At this time of financial stringency, when we are a long way from being out of the wood, the Secretary of State for Scotland is asking us to approve of another scheme costing £14¼ million.
I can tell the House how some of these excess costs were incurred. Some, of course, were due to legitimate, rising costs. No one can challenge that in the years when these schemes were being completed, some completed, some uncompleted, costs have been rising. However, this Board has followed a policy the most inflationary I have ever known in my experience, and instead of working a shift system, as I have urged the Chairman time and again to do, it has run what is called "regular overtime." Year in, year out, men have been working not the eight hours a day for which hon. Gentlemen opposite fought so far and tried to bring about in other years, but 12 hours, at hard manual work in tunnels or above ground. They lay off on Saturdays and work double time Sundays.
I think that is one of the main reasons for these tremendous costs which have been incurred. I think the publicans are the principal beneficiaries. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), with whom I so seldom disagree, and who so seldom disagrees with me, that although we have labour in the Highlands we have not these craftsmen or technicians, and though we do some of the labouring work, when a scheme ends we are once again left with unemployed.
The Hydro-Electric Board has not achieved the objects which it set out to achieve, including the bringing of light industry into its area. We not only want power but we want to use it. Many of us have tried and failed to bring these amenities to the area, but it is not much consolation to my constituents, many of whom are without electricity. The obligation
956
was laid on the Board, in the opening paragraphs of the Act that created it, to bring light and power to the ordinary people living in the Highlands, even in the remote places.
It is true that the words "in so far as practicable" were used, but I know many of the cases where the Board has failed to bring the people light and power, and they are all practicable. Farmers and crofters do not live or work on main streets. They live in the hinterland, and if they are not prepared to pay amounts for connections which are quite beyond their resources they are told that light and power will not be available to them. Throughout the Highlands, from South Inverness right up to Caithness, any number of people are waiting for power and light which they will not get. There is not enough money. It is too expensive to supply the light and power, yet £176 million have been spent already and we are now asked to give a further £14½ million.
The truth is that the Board has plunged on from one scheme to another in the most reckless fashion. I have never known anything like it, and I challenge anyone else to say that he has. One would have thought that, having spent about £100 million, the Board would have said, "We will take a rest now and do our main job of creating and distributing electricity," but the eleven schemes detailed in the Board's last Report, and estimated to cost £98 million, have been in progress for many years.
This has a bearing on the accounts. We hear a great deal about the Board not being able to do various things because it has no money, yet it has a tremendous amount of capital which is not earning a penny but is costing large amounts in interest charges. The Board has covered depreciation and redemption charges running to several million pounds a year. The shareholders of the Board are fully secured money-lenders, and the only person to suffer is the very insecure crofter.
This is the story of the Board's failure. It has followed a policy of squander-mania. In the interests of the Board itself, the House should annul this Order. If ever there were a case for a board of directors to sit back and say, "Let us now make the machine work, let us stop further capital expenditure," this is it.

957
Can the House imagine any commercial company, and above all the great companies of Britain, ever advancing in this fashion with schemes like this, starting from zero and finishing with £200 million? If the Board were to consolidate, its costs would be greatly reduced. The whole of the capital would become revenue producing and rates charged for electricity, not only to those in the High- lands but to those in the South of Scotland who require this power so much for the welfare of our country, would be greatly reduced.
I feel that I have said enough to show my colleagues the need for drastic action. There has been practically no Parliamentary control in the past, but there is an opportunity tonight. Most of the schemes to which I have referred went through on the nod. It may be that tonight some hon. Members who have not heard one word of the debate will vote in support of the scheme—something that I have done before now—but does any hon. Member present think he will be doing what his constituents want him to do if he allows the scheme to go through? This is our chance. We have had hardly any chances for fifteen or sixteen years, but if we vote to stop the scheme tonight it will be in the interests of the Board as much as anybody else.
Mr. William Ross: We have a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and I understand that the hon. Member presented evidence to it. Will he tell us how it reacted to the kind of statement he has been making tonight?
Sir D. Robertson: The evidence is all there to be read by the hon. Member.
10.32 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), as he said, is perfectly entitled when a matter of this kind comes before the House to ensure that it is examined and justified. After he had put his Questions, I was so interested that I made an investigation into the facts. After hearing his speech, I can only regret that he did not do the same, for it would probably have shortened the debate a little.
The question we face tonight is: does Scotland require more power in the years lying ahead? The answer was given by the hon. Member when he said that demand
958
is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum and will, therefore, be doubled in ten years. If that is the case, we must provide the means to produce the power.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who never lacks vigour in swinging his claymore round his head at whatever enemy he has in view, has laid with his claymore a number of the ghosts that he raised. His speech seemed to be a little contradictory. He wanted to stop the production of more electricity in the Highlands, but at the same time he wanted his crofters and others to get electricity. If the supply of electricity were confined to those now getting it, his crofters could never get it. It is contradictory in the same breath to suggest that the Board should stop expanding and to demand that it should supply his crofters.
Sir D. Robertson: That is not correct. My crofters are not getting electricity because they cannot afford the extortionate demands for connections. There is no shortage of electricity. Millions of units are going to the South.
Mr. Woodburn: There is a further point of contradiction. The hon. Member spoke of the extravagance of the Board, the amount of money it is spending. If he had gone into the accounts he would have found that it has to spend a disproportionate amount on distribution compared with other boards. If his crofters are to get electricity in the way he suggested, then, far from the cost of hydro-electricity being reduced, the cost of its distribution would be increased disproportionately.
The House laid upon this, as on other boards, the obligation to balance accounts. Not only has it to do that, but it must make a profit which can be spent in the Highlands making up for the uneconomic costs of linking up the very crofts about which the hon. Member was speaking. My information is that the Board took over about 188,000 consumers in the Highlands and that, since then, it has added another 173,000 consumers, leaving about 66,000 still to be added. Those people cannot have electricity unless the Board produces more. Scotland needs more electricity, as is evidenced by what has been said tonight. If that electricity is to be produced, the question is what is the most economical way of doing it.

959
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland produced a large number of figures about the past. I could not check or comment on them without going into the accounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said that those comments were put before the Select Committee and that the Select Committee made certain observations. As a matter of fact, the Select Committee paid great tribute, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, to the work of the Board and said that it was producing electricity economically.
Mr. Nabarro: What about pump Stations?
Mr. Woodburn: I am coming to that. The Select Committee said that the Board was producing electricity economically to meet the increased need for power, power for houses and factories.
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, demand falls into three categories. The main category is the base load category, which is 24-hours per day production. All demand for electricity fluctuates, and even on a 24-hours per day basis, production must have its ups and downs. There has to be a margin, therefore, of power to meet varying demands. The hon. Member was quite justified in saying that where that margin, that extra, that surplus existed in the base load stations, it should be used for pump storage. He mentioned Hunterston as one of the base load stations. My information is—and perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will confirm it—that there are already arrangements to use the surplus power of Hunterston and the new station at Kincardine near my constituency for pumped storage in the Loch Awe scheme. That first point has been considered, therefore.
Of course, pumped storage is an economical use only for a small number of hours a day, when there is that high demand, what is known as the peak demand for electricity. Water could not be pumped for the supply of electricity for a large part of the day because it would be a waste of energy to pump water up just to let it run down again. Obviously, it is only where there is surplus electricity which would not otherwise be used and which is produced at cheap rates that pumped storage can be used.
960
The middle load, which is the difficult load, is for about 16 hours a day. This is where the hon. Member's calculations were wrong. My information is that it would be uneconomical to install nuclear or steam power to produce electricity for that period of 16 hours a day, because the plant would be exploited for only about two-thirds of the day. Costs and depreciation would be spread over a smaller number of hours, and that would not help to get the cheapest production of electricity. It is only when there is production for 24 hours a day that one gets the cheapest possible stations, and nuclear power or steam power is the way to produce that electricity. Both types of station are being built in Scotland. A big station is being built in Fife to use the very coal we have been discussing in the previous debate. If there is a surplus of electricity it can naturally be diverted for pumped storage.
The question arises: what will be the cheapest way to meet the demand required in the immediate future? The base load stations supplying a 24 hours a day demand have been catered for by the Hunterston, Clackmannan, Kincardine and Fife schemes, and it would be a waste of money to build another nuclear or steam station to produce electricity for which as yet there is no demand.
Mr. Nabarro: We are listening to a very lengthy reply from the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he should apply himself to the evidence given by Mr. Thomas Johnston himself. He, backed by all the Members of that Select Committee, came to the conclusion that pumped storage at nuclear power stations should be provided for the future. Would the right hon. Gentleman address himself to answering the Select Committee and not impute to me things that I did not say?
Mr. Woodburn: Everybody is agreed that pumped storage should be used.
Mr. Nabarro: Under this Order.
Mr. Woodburn: This Order has nothing to do with the schemes for which pumped storage would be useful. This Strathfarrar scheme, to which the hon. Member is objecting, is to produce for a 29 per cent. consumption—that is, a consumption for 8 hours a day. That is a demand which cannot be economically

961
fulfilled by either nuclear power or steam power, because we would not be using the plant for two-thirds of the day and, if we were spreading the on-costs over one-third of the day instead of the 24 hours, the price of electricity would rise considerably.
Therefore, an electricity board of that kind must consider what is the cheapest way to produce electricity to meet a certain demand. We are producing the cheapest electricity from nuclear and steam power stations to provide a 24 hours a day base load service, but for the 8-hour service we have to find some way of producing the electricity which does not involve a whole lot of wasted plant. At the moment that middle electricity demand is very often met by bringing into operation older steam power stations, but when they are brought in they enormously increase the cost of producing electricity. Sir Christopher Hinton says that there are over 50 of these stations and that when they are brought into operation they cause the price of the production of electricity to rise to 1s. 9d. per unit. In the worst cases, it can cost up to 4s. per unit.
In other words, like the marginal farms of the Highlands, we have a lot of marginal electricity stations which we bring in at extra cost to meet the extra demand. The cheapest way to meet that kind of demand is not to bring in these old and inefficient steam power stations, but to build something like the Strathfarrar scheme, which will produce electricity at quite a cheap rate.
My information is that in the case of a 29 per cent. rate factor—a one-third of the day demand—if electricity is produced by water power it costs three farthings a unit; by coal it costs 1·08d., and by nuclear power it costs 1·63d.
Mr. Nabarro: No.
Mr. Woodburn: The cost of hydroelectric power after the station is built tends to fall, whereas the cost in the case of a coal station tends to rise. The hon. Member for Kidderminster nods or wags his head—I do not know what is the right description—
Mr. Nabarro: I was indicating dissent.
Mr. Woodburn: That means that the hon. Gentleman is indicating that he does not know. If he had inquired into the facts, he would have been able to approve
962
of what I am saying instead of indicating dissent.
In the long run, water power is bound to be cheaper than either nuclear or steam power for this purpose. Anyone who opposes this Order should produce facts to show that the Strathfarrar scheme is not the cheapest way to produce the electricity. By his speech the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he has not made the necessary inquiries, because had he done so he could have verified a great many of these facts and not bothered to move his Motion.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned bringing in Irish labour. That point came in quite incidentally in this matter. The amount of Scots labour has never been less than 66 per cent., and it usually is as high as 80 per cent., so the story about Irish labour is a canard. These schemes are not cheap unless expert navvies and people skilled in mining are used. It is ridiculous to suggest that unemployed jute workers from Dundee could do the work. We cannot go on building nuclear power stations merely to provide employment if there is no demand for the electricity. I am in favour of power stations being built at Dundee immediately they are necessary. At the moment, we are experimenting with a gas turbine station, and it may be that in due course that could result in another scheme.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the hon. Member for Kidderminster seem to me to have contradicted each other. While I approve of getting a proper explanation from the Minister about the value of these schemes, I think that a lot of the statements made tonight have contradicted each other. I hope that the House will not disapprove of this scheme, because without it we shall not get the electricity that Scotland needs. We cannot get more electricity without more stations. If, as I am convinced, this is the cheapest way to obtain that electricity, I object to being forced to use other wasteful and extravagant methods.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. John MacLeod: I have no intention of going into the technical details of this matter, as I am not qualified to do so. My information is similar to that of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I hope the right hon. Gentleman has convinced the House that the

963
Board's scheme is the cheapest form of producing electricity. I believe that hydro-electric schemes are still necessary, particularly if we are to get electricity for the people in the Board's area.
I agree that the base load in the Board's area is proportionately less than that elsewhere in the country. I understand that a nuclear station must be large and run continuously before it is economic. Another fact which has been mentioned before is that the area of the Board is very wide and the most difficult in which to distribute electricity. These distribution schemes have to be paid for, and the Board is paying for them by selling electricity outside its area as cheap electricity but at a profit. I understand that at present the Board is spending about £1 million a year on distributing electricity and is losing about £100,000 a year in so doing, which is met by the profits made out of selling electricity outside the area.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), I am disappointed that I have some areas which have no electricity, but I am convinced that electricity would never have been brought into some of these areas at all had it not been by the method used by the Board at present.
May I touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about employment? In an area which badly needs employment, the Board at present employs between 5,000 and 6,000 people. I understand that the Strathfarrar scheme will employ about 1,000 people in direct employment for the next four or five years. The hon. Member for Kidderminster might note that about 72 per cent. of those employed are Scotsmen and that in the Shin scheme 95 per cent. were Highlanders. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland will bear that in mind, particularly now that the provision of employment is becoming a serious problem in the Highland area, where there are not many other forms of employment. It is pointless to use Dundee as an example. The hon. Member for Kidderminster said that we did not want to see people who had been trained for the jute industry drawn into work in the hydro-electric scheme. Other
964
forms of employment are being brought into Dundee; there are forms of employment which could not possibly be taken into the Highlands. It is a ridiculous argument for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to use.
We must also remember that a tremendous amount of other development is taking place in the Highlands which would not otherwise have occurred. That was one of the reasons for the introduction of the 1943 Act and one of the reasons it was passed so easily; it was appreciated that although the schemes were expensive, they would benefit the whole area in every way from the economic point of view. As a result of the schemes there are roads in areas which would not otherwise have had roads, the areas have been improved enormously and tourists have are being attracted to them who would not otherwise have been attracted there. These matters should be borne in mind when hon. Members criticise the capital investment in these schemes. Of course, costs have risen enormously, but we must not forget that the capital costs of other schemes, in other spheres, have also risen. I main-tam that the Board must go ahead with this scheme for the benefit of the whole of the Highland area.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: I have listened today with fascination and wonder to two successive speeches from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The more I listened, the more my wonder grew. The hon. Member and myself are old contestants across the Floor of the House. I was flattered that he should address so much of his attack on the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in a form that was designed to help my constituency in Dundee.
I was surprised because, as the hon. Member himself mentioned, the staple industry of my constituency is jute and the employment in jute in my constituency has been maintained by the operations of a device called Government Jute Control; and for a number of years it is the hon. Member who has conducted the attack on this Government Jute Control. In the last few months, he has had a notable success. He has persuaded his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to tamper and interfere with it. As a result, we have serious unemployment in Dundee. Now, we have

965
the spectacle of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, having done his best to create the unemployment in Dundee, heroically coming to the rescue of the city and suggesting that further hydroelectric development should be stopped in the Highlands so that unemployment in my constituency should be temporarily relieved.
I learned a little Latin at school. I have forgotten almost the whole of it, but almost the only thing which comes back to me is one line from Virgil, dealing with the occasion on which the Greeks besieging Troy presented the Trojans with the famous wooden horse. I think there is a line in Virgil which says:
"I fear the Greeks even when bringing gifts.
I must confess that I distrust the hon. Member for Kidderminster even when he is bringing my constituency fresh employment.
Nobody more than myself would like to see a great new nuclear power station erected in the vicinity of Dundee. I would not want it primarily as a means of easing our unemployment problem, although, no doubt, it would offer some help, but it would, of course, be temporary help. It would provide employment during the period of construction for several years. What I am much more interested in is preserving for Dundee the permanent protection of State trading in jute, which will give to people who have been employed in the jute industry all their lives a secure future, which has been threatened so much in recent years by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
My information, like that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), is that the time for a further nuclear power station near Dundee or elsewhere—but, I hope, near Dundee—is not at present and that it does not fit in with Scotland's electricity requirements of the moment.
Mr. Nabarro: The fact of the matter is that the station, a base load station, is surveyed, has been approved and was temporarily deferred on capital investment grounds only. There is no question of the project being withdrawn. It is a temporary deferment. I want the money spent there rather than in the far north, where it will be largely wasted.
Mr. Thomson: There is a conflict between the information which the hon. Member for Kidderminster is giving the
966
House and the information which I have. This conflict of information is of great importance to my constituents and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will clarify it.
My information is that the Scottish electricity requirements do not need a further nuclear power station at the moment and that the time for such a power station will be in the latter half of the 'sixties. If there is any chance whatever of getting that power station in the Dundee area in the latter half of the 'sixties, I assure the Minister that I will pursue him for such a short time as may be left for him at the Despatch Box and that I will pursue whoever succeeds him from this side of the House at the Despatch Box in the years thereafter in bringing it about.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster is accurate in saying that a site has been surveyed in Dundee and that a scheme has been held up for economic reasons, because that certainly is not the information that I have had.
To turn to the general issues raised by the Order, I think the trouble with the hon. Member for Kidderminster is that he is one of the Parliamentarians I most like to listen to. But James Maxton, when in this House, once remarked that to be a Parliamentarian in this circus one had to be able to ride two horses at once. The hon. Member for Kidderminster's defect is that he only rides one horse at once, with very great dexterity but very fast in all sorts of odd directions. He always concentrates on one issue to the exclusion of everything else, which is very stimulating but seldom gives a balanced picture of the position.
It is certainly true that in the field of electricity generation we require not only coal and nuclear generating plant but also the conventional hydro-electric plant for as far ahead as one can see. I think we might pay attention to the plans of Russia in this respect. I understand the Russians are going ahead with nuclear power stations and with great hydroelectric schemes. There is nothing mutually exclusive about them; they are complementary. I am not referring simply to pumped storage and nuclear power stations but to conventional hydroelectric and nuclear power stations.
I think that is the reality the hon. Member for Kidderminster ought to face and

967
towards which he should direct some of his energies. If he would divert some of his energies to promoting plans for a balanced power programme in Scotland then we would welcome his changed outlook.
On a separate issue, I should like to refer to the delays that have taken place in bringing this scheme before the House. The scheme was originally tabled by the Secretary of State in February of last year. There were a number of objections to it and a public inquiry. It is six months after the public inquiry that we finally have the Secretary of State's approval. I am told that in fact there was a period of some years before the scheme was formally brought out, during which time the Hydro-Electric Board tried its best to arrive at private settlements with those who objected. One of the settlements arrived at privately was that with Lord Lovat which has already been discussed in this House. That involved a payment of £100,000 for the loss of fishing rights over eighteen miles of river. I was startled when I heard the figure.
I think a much more serious question than the £100,000 paid to Lord Lovat was the amount of money that the objections of Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn have cost the community. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir David Robertson) mentioned the difference between the estimates for many of these schemes and the final figures. That has been due to the general inflation we have had during the post-war years; but when there is a long delay between the time a scheme is originally proposed and the time when it can be started, because of the obstruction of a few private landowners bent on defending their own private sporting rights, then the community pays a very high cost indeed. If we calculate the yearly inflation at roughly 5 per cent. per year, I think it fair to send a bill of 10 per cent. as the cost of obstruction by those who raise these objections, which came to a public inquiry last December—and 10 per cent. of the capital cost of the scheme presently before us is very nearly £1½ million.
I think we have to ask seriously, while preserving the rights of private property and the right for objections to be publicly examined, whether investigation of these ought to be speeded. We are
968
engaged in a technological race with other countries of the world, and I doubt whether we can afford these very long and expensive delays we have been having over a number of these schemes in recent years.
I would say one word to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose militancy in these matters I always personally respect. I thought his attack tonight on the Board and on his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench was a really unreasonable attack.
Mr. Nabarro: Why?
Mr. Grant-Ferris: They have not said so.
Mr. Thomson: I will say why. The hon. Gentleman is concerned, and properly concerned, with looking after the interests of his constituents, and he is concerned with getting them provided with electricity. The only way in which the provision of their electricity can be financed is by the extension of the Board's programme. I am told that the Board spends about £1 million a year in joining people to the supply, that the replacement costs work out at annual charges of about £200,000 a year, and that the actual revenue from those connections comes to about £60,000 a year. Therefore, the annual subsidy to the hon. Member's constituents is £140,000 a year.
I think that subsidy is well worth while, helping as it does to preserve the way of life of the hon. Member's constituents. I think it is important that they should be subsidised; but that subsidy has to come from somewhere, and I think that by far the most effective way of doing it is the way the Board does it, by expanding its generation, by selling its surplus of electricity to the South, and by using the profits to provide the hon. Member's constituents with electricity.
Sir D. Robertson: I think the hon. Member had better read what I did say. As to the way of life of my constituents, the men for whom I am fighting and have fought for years are burning oil lamps tonight.
Mr. Thomson: I accept the hon. Member's views of his constituents' conditions rather more readily than I accept the views of some hon. Members opposite who sit for southern constituencies of the United Kingdom.

969
The hon. Member complained that the affairs of the Board had not had adequate Parliamentary scrutiny. I am a new Member of this House, but so far I have not observed that, whenever any abuse has been brought up or alleged, it has not quickly been given Parliamentary scrutiny, and I suggest that the fact that the Board's Reports and Accounts have not been debated more is evidence that the Board has carried out its duties efficiently and well.
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: No. If the hon. Member believes that he can believe anything.
Mr. Thomson: I would commend the hon. Member, before he sits through a debate of this kind and intervenes in it by means of interruptions, at least to look at the Report a Select Committee of this House has prepared on the affairs of the Board. We have the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (Reports and Accounts), which conducted a thorough investigation of the affairs of the Hydro-Electric Board, and this was the conclusion it came to:
"In the fourteen years of its existence, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has impressively justified the faith of its progenitors."
That is the answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
11.10 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): First I should like to say that the Government are very glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Nabarro) has submitted this Motion, because it gives us an opportunity of dealing with this scheme. The full attendance in the House shows the interest taken in the scheme and the fascination which the Highlands always exercise in this House.
I regret that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) should have felt that there had been obstruction in this matter. Everybody is given a right under the Acts to defend their own interests, and a period is given for objections once a scheme has been published. It is everybody's right to avail themselves of that period. I would say in passing that the actual cost of the inquiry is unlikely to exceed £100. The hon. Gentleman talked about delay costing £1½ million. That is something which the Government are grappling with,
970
and the right way is to deal with inflation and not deny private citizens their rights in matters of this description.
Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much has been paid in compensation to landowners who have objected?
Mr. Macpherson: That is not involved in this Prayer against this scheme. It is not part of the scheme.
We have to bear in mind that the procedure laid down in the 1943 Act gives very full protection. In this case an inquiry was held. It lasted five days, and thereafter the Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Maclay) examined the scheme in great detail. Objectors who wanted the scheme withdrawn might naturally be expected to marshal every possible technical and economic argument against it. The Commissioner concluded, however, in paragraph 9 of his Report:
"I am clearly of the opinion that the evidence fully justified the Board's view that this scheme was necessary if the estimated demand for electricity was to be met in 1961–62 and beyond."
There are really three main grounds on which any hydro-electric scheme could be opposed: first, that the particular scheme proposed is uneconomic or unnecessarily destructive of amenity or fisheries—that is, that this is not the right hydro-scheme to propose and in this case, these objections were discussed in the inquiry; secondly, that the particular scheme is not needed because there is already a sufficiency of power available to meet demand. That has not been contended this evening, although the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir David Robertson) came near to saying just that, because he advocated a halt being called to expansion. I do not think anyone has seriously contended that increased electricity production was not required to meet the increase in demand, which is likely to be of the order of 10 per cent. per annum as estimated by the Board, resulting in rather more than doubling the consumption of electricity within the next ten years.
The third ground is that the anticipated increase in demand could be better met by a form of generation other than hydroelectricity—that is, that this is not the right kind of generation.
My hon. Friend tonight has based his argument entirely on this ground. We are all aware that the initial capital cost

971
of a hydro-electric scheme in relation to kilowatts sent out is high in comparison with what are sometimes called "fossil fuel" stations—that is, those burning coal or oil. It has been argued that in a period when there is a shortage of capital for investment it would be wiser to invest in a form of generation with a lower initial cost, even though it might not last for a third of the time which a hydro-electric plant can be expected to last.
We have to work on certain assumptions in preparing a scheme like this, but it is worth bearing in mind that the cost of a hydro-electric station set up in Galloway in the 1930s was about 0·2d. per unit and the cost is still 0·2d., but the cost of steam stations put up about the same time with the same cost per unit which now have been relegated to use at peak periods, that is supplementary production steam stations, is four times as great. That is a relevant consideration which we should bear in mind.
In any case, there is one strong objection to this point of view. Because of the unevenness of daily demand, neither steam nor nuclear stations can give us by themselves all the electricity at the time of day required nearly so cheaply as in combination with hydro-electric schemes. Why is that? If steam stations were constructed to meet intermediate or peak load they would be operating at higher unit cost than hydro-electric generating stations of a similar power. In the North of Scotland district the average cost of electricity provided from hydro-power alone last year was under 0·6d. per unit, whereas the average cost of electricity from both hydro-power and steam was 0·7d. The estimated cost of electricity to be produced by the Strathfarrar scheme is 0·75d. per unit. This compares with a total average cost of electricity generated in England and Wales in 1956–57—and it has gone up since—of 0·86d. per unit. This illustrates how much more favourable hydro-power is for this structure of the load, and the benefit of hydro-electric schemes which can be turned off and on at short notice.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Is my hon. Friend assuming that the scheme will cost £14¼ million,
972
as estimated, or a great deal more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has indicated has been the case with every scheme in the past?
Mr. Macpherson: I was coming to that point. While it is quite true that with schemes prepared some years ago when there was no experience of post-war conditions the final cost was very greatly in excess of estimates for reasons beyond the Board's control, in later schemes final costs have been very much nearer estimates. For example, the final cost of the Shin scheme now nearing completion, as estimated in March, 1958, was £8,900,000, as against an estimate made in 1953 of £8,800,000, an increase of only £100,000. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will take comfort from that. In any case, there is no doubt that a hydro-electric scheme is ideally suited to meet intermediate and peak loads and this is just what Strathfarrar is designed to do. One of the advantages of hydroelectric schemes is that they can be designed to meet a load best suited for a particular purpose.
My hon. Friend has argued that the Board should provide the 100,000 or so kilowatt capacity needed to meet the anticipated growth in demand by way of a pumped storage scheme, and he has mentioned the very low figure of capital cost per kilowatt estimated for the Loch Awe scheme. One of the Board's main reasons for promoting the Awe scheme is that it is expected that by the time it is completed in 1964–65 there will be available both cheap supplies of base load power to do the pumping and also a demand for the peak power produced. Until then these conditions will not be fulfilled. I can assure my hon. Friend that the anticipated base load production from Hunterston is fully committed in the early years of its operation.
Mr. Nabarro: What about all the other base load stations in Scotland, including two at Portobello, Edinburgh, which are being used hardly at all in the night hours? They should be linked to further pumped storage stations.
Mr. Macpherson: My hon. Friend will realise that there are always stations which are getting out of date, and, indeed, steam stations—
Mr. Nabarro: These are new ones.
Mr. Macpherson: There is always a proportion of the stations available to an electricity authority which are getting out of date, and that means that they are relegated to secondary status and the newer stations come on to supply the base load at the higher load factors.
As I said, until 1964–65 the conditions that are necessary to make a success of a pumped storage scheme will not be fulfilled. What the Board needs by 1962 is 100,000 kilowatt of intermediate load power, and this can be provided by the Strathfarrar scheme.
My hon. Friend quoted from what Mr. Tom Johnston said. I would remind my hon. Friend that what Mr. Johnston said was "If they put in their Hunterston station and have more power than they want at night, we can take it." They are puting in the Hunterston station, but I can tell my hon. Friend that at that period there will not be the surplus power at night. So the second condition is not fulfilled.
The second point that my hon. Friend raised was transmission over a distance. Of course, it is possible to transmit over a distance, but the capital cost of new transmission is £25,000 per mile for up to 500,000 kilowatt; that is. £1 million for 40 miles. If we assume that the distance from Hunterston to Strathfarrar is about 200 miles, the extra cost would be in the region of £5 million.
Mr. Nabarro: What is the distance from Hunterston to Loch Awe and what is the cost entailed? It is no good quoting one in isolation from the other. Let us have both of them.
Mr. Macpherson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will study the map of Scotland a little batter than he has apparently done. If he will look at the map he will find that Loch Awe is not much more than half the distance, if as much, from Hunterston as is Strathfarrar.
It should be realised that it was at least as much the search for a means of providing a continuous outlet for the output of large steam and nuclear power stations as the difficulty of providing peak load economically that led to pumped storage schemes being thought of at all. I cannot emphasise too strongly that what commends a pumped storage scheme as an economic proposition is the combination of the availability of cheap base load
974
electricity for which there is no other use and the need for peak load supplies which are extremely expensive to produce from steam or nuclear power. I confirm the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman regarding comparable cost from a nuclear station of producing electricity at a load factor of 29 and the cost from Strathfarrar. He is quite right in saying that it would be of the order of 1·63d. per unit as compared with 0·75d. per unit.
My hon. Friend suggested that the power might have been obtained from Dundee, and he said that it was on the grounds only of financial stringency that the proposal to put up a nuclear power station in the North of Scotland was postponed. I do not know why he should have said that and I do not know what grounds he had for saying it, but the fact is that a site for a station has been surveyed, not in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dundee, East, but in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire. East (Sir R. Boothby). I am afraid that once again my hon. Friend has got his geography a little wrong. In any case, there is no comparison with the labour. I confirm the figures given, that the Board is using about 80 per cent., and never less than two thirds, Scottish labour.
The main point is that the stations have to be erected at the times and to fulfil the needs which are required. The North of Scotland Board intends to construct a nuclear station in the north-east of Scotland, but it had never intended to do so before 1965, as my hon. Friend will see if he looks at the documents, because the conditions for a nuclear station in that area will not be fulfilled until then. Until that time, there will not be adequate demand for base load electricity in that area to justify a nuclear station. These things are a matter of timing.
My hon. Friend said that we should not treat this proposal as a matter for the Highlands alone. I absolutely agree with him. This is a matter for the whole country, but the economic situation of the Highlands is a matter for the whole country. Indeed, that is why we had the 1943 legislation.
In any case, I can assure my hon. Friend that not only is there the closest co-operation between the North of Scotland and the South of Scotland Boards, but there is also the closest examination

975
of the Board's requirements and capital investment considerations at a national level. The South of Scotland Board has agreed with the North of Scotland Board what additional supplies of peak load electricity should be provided by the North of Scotland Board in the next few years and what base load off-peak supplies it is expected to be able to make available for pumped storage, and when.
In those circumstances, I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friend that, while I thank him for bringing forward this Motion in the interest of both the country as a whole and of the Highlands, this is the best way to

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.
meet what he admits is a growing need for electricity in the Highlands of Scotland. If we do not meet the need this way, if we stop going ahead in this way, the Board will be in an even worse position to go ahead with what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland wants—that is, out of the profits made from the supply of electricity to the South of Scotland and through the lower cost of production in the Highlands, to supply the means of distributing electricity to the outlying parts of Scotland.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 122.

Division No. 197.]

AYES

[11.30 p.m.

Atkins, H. E.

Barlow, Sir John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Nabarro and

Sir David Robertson.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Oakshott, H. D.

Aitken, W. T.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Alport, C. J. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Page, R. G.

Arbuthnot, John

Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Balniel, Lord

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Peel, W. J.

Barber, Anthony

Hornby, R. P.

Pitman, I. J.

Barter, John

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Batsford, Brian

Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Popplewell, E.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Bishop, F. P.

Iremonger, T. L.

Rawlinson, Peter

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Redmayne, M.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Roper, Sir Harold

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Ross, William

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Joseph, Sir Keith

Sharples, R. C.

Cooke, Robert

Kaberry, D.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Cooper, A. E.

Kershaw, J. A.

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kirk, P. M.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lawson, G. M.

Storey, S.

Dance, J. C. G.

Leavey, J. A.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Errington, Sir Eric

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Gammans, Lady

Longden, Gilbert

Vane, W. M. F.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Vickers, Miss Joan

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Wall, Patrick

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Webster, David

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Maddan, Martin

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Green, A.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mawby, R. L.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hannan, W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Mr. Hughes-Young and

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Mr. Bryan.

Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Bristol Commercial Vehicles, Limited
  Bristol Commercial Vehicles, Limited
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff
  Contract Draughting
  Contract Draughting
  Military Aircraft Production(Contracts)
  Military Aircraft Production(Contracts)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Speech Therapists, North Riding
  Speech Therapists, North Riding
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (Report)
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (Report)
  Radiographers (Salaries)
  Radiographers (Salaries)
  Rehabilitation of the Disabled (Piercy Report)
  Rehabilitation of the Disabled (Piercy Report)
  BRITISH PUBLICATIONS AND FILMS (OVERSEAS SALES)
  BRITISH PUBLICATIONS AND FILMS (OVERSEAS SALES)
  RUSSIAN TRAWLER, SHETLAND (REFUGEE)
  RUSSIAN TRAWLER, SHETLAND (REFUGEE)
  INCIDENT, PANAMA (MR. DON WHITE)
  INCIDENT, PANAMA (MR. DON WHITE)
  ADEN-YEMEN BORDER (INCIDENTS)
  ADEN-YEMEN BORDER (INCIDENTS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (ORGANISATION)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (ORGANISATION)
  DEFENCE SERVICES (WHITE PAPER)
  DEFENCE SERVICES (WHITE PAPER)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Heneage Report
  Heneage Report
  Potatoes and Eggs
  Potatoes and Eggs
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Textile Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Textile Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Retirement Pensions (Payment)
  Retirement Pensions (Payment)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Opencast Coal Sites (Blasting)
  Opencast Coal Sites (Blasting)
  Clean Air Act, 1956 (Fuel Production)
  Clean Air Act, 1956 (Fuel Production)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Plutonium)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Safety Branch)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Safety Branch)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Steel (Public Works)
  Steel (Public Works)
MALTA
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Public Order
  Public Order
  CROWN AGENTS (POSTAGE STAMP SALES)
  CROWN AGENTS (POSTAGE STAMP SALES)
TANGANYIKA
  Law Students
  Law Students
  Land Tenure
  Land Tenure
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Departmental Staff (Service Overseas)
  Departmental Staff (Service Overseas)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Wales (Advisory Committees)
  Wales (Advisory Committees)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

STREET BETTING LAWS
2.35 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if, in view of the difficulty of enforcing the law relating to street betting and the strain upon the police forces of the country in attempting to enforce it, they will introduce legislation in the next Session of Parliament to repeal the Act.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the possibility of repealing the Street Betting Act, 1906, was considered by the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949–51. The Royal Commission recommended against it, because they did not think it would be desirable to remove all restraint on bookmakers plying their trade in the streets.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Act passed through another place some fifty years ago members of the Conservative Party objected to it on the ground that it was a class measure. It prevented the working man from putting on a shilling bet, when a rich man could bet by cheque, and it was felt that it would lead to widespread evasion and might also lead to police corruption. If the Act were repealed it would be unlikely to add to the volume of gambling, because it goes on now in the street.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, clearly I am not personally aware of what happened fifty years ago; but I am certainly aware that the situation leaves a good deal to be desired at the present time; and, indeed, that fact has been recognised by Her Majesty's Government rather more recently than fifty years ago.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
2.37 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into how far the rights and liberties of the Press and the public have been affected by recent judicial decisions as to what constitutes matters sub judice, and by the extent of Parliamentary privilege.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the first part of the noble Earl's Question raises serious issues, which my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General and I are considering. The second part of the noble Earl's Question raises quite different issues. Though this matter is one of great interest, I do not think that inquiry by a Royal Commission is called for.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his Answer, may I ask him this supplementary question, which I should like to say is not intended to reflect in any way upon the high authorities mentioned in the Question. Is he aware that high legal opinion and articles in such newspapers as The Times have shown concern at what is alleged to be the undue emphasis by another place upon its privileges, or, to put it more accurately, contempt of its privileges by outside persons? Is he further aware that the same concern is expressed at what is again alleged to be the undue emphasis placed by the courts upon what constitutes contempt in matters which are sub judice? And is he further aware that the privilege of the High Court of Parliament (as I know, having been, I think, longer than most others a member of the Committee of Privileges of another place) is based largely upon the Bill of Rights of 1688, which was passed in order to protect Parliament against the Crown, not against the people; and that recent judicial decisions have been based upon the judgment of Lord Hardwicke in 1742, when a corrupt Government were endeavouring

949
to influence the Judiciary to prevent opposition in the Press? Surely in those circumstances some inquiry is called for?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may take the subjects now in the order of my noble friend's supplementary questions. First, with regard to the question of privilege, I also have served on the Committee of Privileges in another place, though not, of course, with the experience of my noble friend. I am well aware of the history of the matter, and I think that my noble friend and I might find another occasion when we could discuss the origins and the history. But I should like just to say this to-day. The case recently discussed in another place, as I understand it, did not involve any change in the law of privilege but simply its application to particular facts. Therefore, I do not propose to say any more, because it would not be in accordance with the comity between the two Houses that I should discuss in any way the debate that has taken place in another place.
On the other point, contempt of court, I conceive it my duty as Lord Chancellor to do nothing to encourage comment that would prejudice the fair trial of any Her Majesty's Government's subjects. My noble friend Lord Winterton, with his high sense of constitutional propriety, would be the last to advocate trial by newspapers instead of trial by jury. I am, however, conscious of the desirability that citizens of this country should be encouraged to read Commonwealth and foreign newspapers, and I am ready to consider any suggestion to help the latter in the situation in which they have been found. I am also ready—and I think the House would grant that I am always ready—to consider improvements in the procedure of the law; and if any suggestions are made by the noble Earl or by anyone else in any part of the House I shall be very glad to consider them in relation to this subject matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are all obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what was obviously a calm and considered statement upon a difficult and controversial subject. May I take it from what he has said that, excluding the particular case which was under discussion, there is no intention of having any alteration
950
in the constitutional practice of the law with regard to the privilege of Parliament? That is what I gathered from what he said. I would agree, of course, with any free inquiry of the kind which the noble and learned Viscount has made, but I hope he will also be aware that there are very strong feelings on the necessity for keeping such a privilege of Parliament as will enable the citizens' representatives to be quite free in making statements on their behalf.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition of course understood me perfectly correctly when I said that I did not think that this was a subject for a Royal Commission. On the question of privilege, I am sure that that always ought to be regarded, as the noble Viscount said—and I am sure the noble Earl who raised this matter would be the first to support him—on the basis of the undoubted truth that it is the privilege of all of Her Majesty's subjects, expressed in the acting of Parliament, that every problem that arises, as has been the case with those that have arisen over the last 350 years, should be considered carefully, quietly and dispassionately with that point in mind. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, whilst it is true that matters of privilege in another place are not subject to debate here, I understand there is common ground in the privilege of both Houses; therefore, the general question of privilege concerns us all. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor this question: is he aware that some people have been rather anxious about the decision that a letter sent to a Minister complaining about the conduct of some part of the Government is not a proceeding in Parliament? I am not aware that that has ever been decided before. If that is so, it would seem that that rule applies as much here as elsewhere, and it puts Members of this House in this difficulty, that before forwarding a letter to a Minister they must ask themselves: "Inasmuch as this is not a proceeding in Parliament, is there matter here which might bring me into the courts?"
Finally, the Lord Chancellor referred to the Attorney General. The Attorney General gave an obiter dictum in another place which was rather puzzling. He said

951
that of course a speech in Parliament is subject to a writ. Would the Lord Chancellor get the Attorney General to obey a Writ of Attendance, which he receives to come here, and explain what he meant by that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the only logical answer to the noble Viscount's compendious question would be that given by Sir Gordon Hewart in another place to a question by Mr. Horatio Bottomley: "The answer is in the plural". But I will try to do my best. Of course, the noble Viscount is right in his first supposition, that the privilege of Parliament is a matter for both Houses, and this House has its privileges which are part of the law of Parliament, as has the House of Commons. With regard to the specific point, I would ask the noble Viscount to let me abide by my first answer: that this was an issue which raised no change in the law but simply its application to a particular matter; and the House of Commons has given its view on its application to the particular matter that was raised.
With regard to the passage referred to in the speech of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General, again I would put to the noble Viscount that I should not be asked in a supplementary question to comment on the speeches in that debate. I am not trying to avoid it, but it does involve considering the context and background in which the statement was made, and I should prefer not to give an answer on that point. With regard to the suggestion that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General should answer the Writ, the noble Viscount will remember that on the last occasion he raised that point I deluged him with history, and I certainly am not going to turn on the flood again.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chancellor for his answer, but may I ask for a plain answer to this question: if I send a letter to a Minister complaining in heated terms about some alleged mismanagement in his Department, must I rely, if attacked, on what is called "qualified privilege", or have I the privilege of a proceeding in Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must ask the noble Viscount to put that question on the Paper. There are so many qualifications that arise, as to the nature of the letter and the circumstances, and I certainly should not be prepared to give a reply on my fourth time of rising in answer to a supplementary question.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I will not ask the Lord Chancellor to rise again, but I will thank him for his reply and say that I will certainly put a Question on the Paper. May I remind him that when he and I served on the Select Committee in the Sandys case he took an exactly opposite view on the question of privilege when writing to a Minister?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has reminded me of a very happy co-operation which we had exactly twenty years ago. I speak from memory, but in that case, I think, we were considering the action of an honourable Member of another place who said to a Minister: "If you do not satisfy me to-day I shall put this Question on the Order Paper ". We then considered a particular case which was extremely proximate, if I may put it that way, to the placing of the Question on the Order Paper, and I do not think the noble Viscount should say anything to-day which suggests that it was extended beyond that. It was a very carefully considered answer which the Select Committee gave on the facts placed before it in that case, and I do not agree that it covers the case discussed in another place last week.

STRONTIUM 90 FALL-OUT
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to make a statement to inform the public of the amounts of radio strontium in Great Britain in 1957 and 1958, observing that the last information published related to the position in 1956.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the noble Viscount has been misinformed. A report by the Atomic Energy Authority, giving the United Kingdom figures for 1957 of strontium in human bones, has been published, and is now available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Other information, also covering 1957, has been published in the medical press. In future, publication of the results of fall-out monitoring will normally be by calendar years.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on what date was the report made?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Some time ago, certainly before this Question was put down; but I should require notice in order to give the exact date.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if we refer to the questions put to the Prime Minister in another place last week, we find that there seems to be a general impression with regard to the fall-out of strontium 90 that no information had been available since 1956. Of course it may be that the publication has been of quite recent date. Is the noble and learned Viscount aware that there is grave anxiety in the country about this general matter and that there is a feeling that publicity ought to be given not only to the percentage of fall-out of strontium 90 but also to what are its effects? The anxiety in Wales, particularly in the agricultural industry, I think justifies giving far more publicity to our information than has yet been given.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. I am fully aware of the anxiety and of the desirability of suitable publicity. I think it is very important that people should be accurately informed about this general matter. I would remind the noble Viscount, however, that within the next month a fairly powerful report is due from the international committee set up by the United Nations on the effects of these various substances, and I should think that before issuing any fresh material of a commentative character we should be wise to await that report, so that what we say will be up to date.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. That may be very helpful, but I hope that it will include the points we have made in regard to the effects of the fall-out in various districts of our own country.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in my original Answer I tried to say that it has been published for some time. Indeed, the monitoring service which is responsible for the publication of the figures has been very considerably increased over the last year or so. Of course, the figures and the inferences to be drawn from them are matters for scientific discussion, and I should hope that in any publicity which is given to the matter a serious attempt will be made in a dispassionate and objective way to explain to the public the correct scientific inferences. In this connection I would say that the report of the Medical Research Council of 1956 still holds the field and should be carefully studied.

RIGHTS OF LIGHT ON WAR DAMAGE SITES
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor a Question of which I have given him Private Notice—namely, whether he is able to make a statement about the conclusions of the Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Harman, set up to consider the need for legislation regarding the law concerning the rights of light in relation to war damage sites and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Committee's Report was presented to me on May 12 and will be published as a Command Paper to-day. Her Majesty's Government are in general agreement with the Committee's proposals, including the recommendation that there should be an extension of the period for the prospective acquisition of the rights of light from twenty to twenty-seven years, which should operate from the date of the publication of the Report. We intend to introduce appropriate legislation as soon as the Parliamentary time-table permits.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL
[H.L.]
DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
HORSE BREEDING BILL [H.L.]
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

FATSTOCK (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER, 1958
2.54 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I suggest that your Lordships may find it convenient to consider together the three Orders on the Paper. All three have the same purpose of supporting the arrangements which give effect to guaranteed prices under Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1957. These three Orders make use of the Ministers' powers under Section 5 of the 1957 Act to make by Order such provisions as are necessary to ensure that guarantee payments are given only to those entitled to them. This is, of course, essential to protect the Exchequer. For eggs and fatstock the Orders will end our reliance upon emergency legislation for this particular purpose. That is something which I am sure your Lordships will welcome.
I will describe briefly the most important provisions of the three Orders. They all require the keeping of certain records. I know full well that provisions of this sort are not popular, but we must recognise that some inspection of records is essential for the proper safeguarding of the guarantees, and that the payment of large sums of public money imposes certain obligations on those who receive such public money. We have tried to strike the right balance between covering
956
every conceivable possibility and avoiding imposing unnecessarily irksome requirements. I think that the provisions we propose are fair and reasonable, bearing in mind the large sums involved. We paid out £180 million on cereals, eggs and fat-stock last year. We believe that the Orders will not in fact involve anybody in much extra paper work.
As well as the requirements about records, each of the Orders provides powers of entry for authorised officers of the appropriate Minister at reasonable times. I think I can safely say that this power, which has been available to us under the Defence Regulations, has been used in the past with circumspection and will continue to be so used. The Orders also provide power to obtain possession of vital evidence which may be needed for prosecutions.
In connection with eggs, the Order specifies the approved marks which packers will be required to stamp on all hen and duck eggs qualifying for subsidy. In regard to fatstock and their use for breeding—which perhaps has been a difficult point—the Order similarly provides for marking every animal or carcase approved for guarantee payment in such a way that an attempt to get a second guarantee payment on it will be detected; and it prohibits the presentation again of any animal or carcase that has already been approved for a guarantee payment. Fatstock guarantee payments are intended for animals which are ready for immediate slaughter and to be used for meat. It would be an abuse of the guarantee system for animals on which payments have been made to be used for breeding, and we are therefore prohibiting the use of certified animals for this purpose.
The powers which are being taken up in these Orders we believe to be the minimum necessary to safeguard public money which is intended for the support of our agricultural industry, and I commend these Orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CEREALS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER, 1958
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EGGS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) ORDER, 1958
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
3.0 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 7 [Supplemental provisions as to acquisition of land]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "fourteen days" and insert "two months". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary to trouble your Lordships at length with this Amendment, or to reiterate all the arguments I used on the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 7 (2) gives the London County Council the right, within fourteen days of this Bill becoming law, to take possession of property, and turn out the tenants who are at present enjoying the rights of that property, in Park Lane and Knightsbridge. My argument on the Committee stage was that this was far too short a notice, particularly in view of the fact that the London County Council had stated that they did not want the property at the earliest until next October.
I put down an Amendment to extend the period from fourteen to ninety days. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his usual accommodating manner, rather agreed with my argument as to the fourteen days—in fact, he had to make the plaintive statement that he was a rather reluctant advocate in the matter—but did not quite agree to my ninety days.
958
We have had conversations since then, and in my desire to meet the noble Lord I have come down from ninety days, and he in his turn has come up from thirty days. The result is this Amendment, which seeks to alter "fourteen days" to "two months." This, I understand, unless the noble Lord has been persuaded otherwise, will meet with the acceptance of the Government. I hope that my thanks to the noble Lord are not premature. If they are not, I can tell him that the concession which he has granted, by seeing the force of the arguments and the justice of the case that was presented, will be greeted with satisfaction by all the tenants concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out (" fourteen days ") and insert (" two months ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilwarth.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, think the House would wish the Government to accept this Amendment, but lest your Lordships should think that it is merely a matter of horse-trading between the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and myself I think I should explain briefly (because this is an important matter) why we think this Amendment should be accepted. We are accepting it for one reason, and one reason only. Your Lordships will remember the famous words of the late Lord Hewart:
" It is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
This Amendment is a classic illustration of the late Lord Hewart's dictum. What we had put in the Bill for notice of entry was fourteen days. We believed, as we still believe, that with all the time for consideration and debate, with the opportunities for objections by private individuals and for hearing those objections, and all the publicity which a Bill of this kind provides, when the time eventually came to take over the land everyone affected would have had an ample period in which to settle his affairs.
Because of the Bill everyone concerned has already had six months' warning, and the London County Council have also told occupiers that their property will probably be wanted between October and the end of this year. In other words, nearly a year will have passed between the time when our intentions were first made

959
known and the time when the London County Council take over. I had hoped that your Lordships would have considered that this was an arrangement fair to those affected and fair to those who have to carry out the scheme. Some of your Lordships clearly feel, however, that, although this may be so, it is not right for owners and occupiers to have any cause for anxiety at all about whether the period of notice to quit will be long enough. I have no doubt that all will be well, but I am anxious to do anything reasonable to remove any doubt in the minds of others.
May I mention one reason for extending the period of notice which I think is not valid. It is that, so far as acquiring land and property goes, this Park Lane improvement scheme is special or different from other schemes. Once Parliament has decided that a man has to give up his land, I do not think it will interest him very much whether it is to be used for a £2 million underpass or for a bus shelter for the proverbial Clapham omnibus. In fact, the only special thing I see in this scheme is that great pains have been taken to give those affected ample warning of what is likely to happen, and it was for this reason that we felt justified in putting in the Bill a minimum of fourteen days. Fourteen days is, indeed, a customary period. It is, for instance, what is prescribed in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946; and it may interest your Lordships to know that in nine London County Council Acts passed between 1930 and 1948 Parliament allowed fourteen days in sections similar to this one. In more recent London County Council Acts the minimum time has been one month, and at the Committee stage of this Bill the Government were prepared, despite the special care I have mentioned, to give a month here instead of fourteen days.
My Lords, I could continue to expound the justice of prescribing either fourteen days or a month, but, however persuasive I might be, if your Lordships did not think that either period looked right in this particular case, it would be the Government's duty to consider what would. If I interpret the feeling of your Lordships correctly, your Lordships believe that the minimum of two months, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of
960
Chilworth, has put down, is enough to make it perfectly clear that no injustice will be done. That being so, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can only express my gratitude to the noble Lord. I am glad that, after all the arguments as to why he should not accept it, the reason given in your Lordships' House has prevailed. I do not suppose the tenants affected trouble whether it is a £2 million scheme or a 2½d scheme that causes them to be evicted; their interest lies in the fact that they will now have two months' notice and not fourteen days' notice. As regards the past sins of the London County Council, perhaps it would have been better if they had had a more belligerent opposition, as they now have.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, after Clause 23 to insert the following new clause:
Public Meetings etc. in Hyde Park
" .—() Nothing in this Act shall authorise the removal of any facilities for public meeting or procession customarily available in Hyde Park unless equal alternative facilities are provided."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the subject matter of this Amendment, which is quite a simple Amendment, was raised in debate on the Committee stage. Its purpose is to protect the existing facilities for the right of procession into Hyde Park and for the right of meeting and free speech at a certain section of the park. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill was good enough to say that he was of the same opinion as I was about this, and he gave verbal assurances. Those I have attempted to put into an Amendment. There are a series of clauses which give protection to a number of people such as the Post Office, statutory bodies, and so on, and I think we might easily include in the Bill protection for the right of public speech in Hyde Park, which is almost a historic demonstration of our outlook. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Government have every sympathy with the spirit behind this Amendment. I

961
hope, however, that what I have to say will convince your Lordships that it would be a mistake to include in this Bill a reference to the facilities for public meetings or processions in Hyde Park. The use of an area at the north-east corner of Hyde Park for public speaking dates from at least the early part of the nineteenth century. It is a right that rests upon custom and tradition; it is nowhere defined by Statute. It is not intended that this Bill shall make any change whatsoever in the rights of public speaking at Speakers' Corner. It would, in the opinion of the Government, be quite inappropriate for any such rights to be given statutory expression in this Bill. Even if it were so appropriate, I (like a number of your Lordships), as an upholder of the rights of free speech, should resist such definition. I should resist such definition because defined rights are limited rights. Undefined rights resting on tradition are rights subject only to the law of the land. The Government are therefore of opinion that to include in this Bill reference to such facilities might have exactly the reverse effect of what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, intends.
I have said that the Government do not intend to alter in any way the rights of public speaking at Speakers' Corner. Unfortunately, it is impossible to carry out the improvements at Marble Arch without encroaching on a part of the space now known as Speakers' Corner. I have already stated in your Lordships' House that the Government intend to preserve the facilities traditionally enjoyed by speakers and their audiences in Hyde Park, though it may be necessary to move part of the area of Speakers' Corner a little further into the park.
What it amounts to is this. An area of 4,600 square yards will be lost. On the other hand, it is intended to gravel over an additional area of 6,500 square yards a little further inside the park behind the clump of trees by the present Speakers' Corner, and this new area will be available for use by speakers and their audiences. A further area of 1,200 square yards will be gained adjacent to the existing area by realignment of the road. I have put a map outside your Lordships' House to show this point more clearly. Your Lordships will see that on present plans the Government intend not only to
962
maintain an equivalent area for public speaking but, indeed, to increase that area. The existing area is about 7,000 square yards, and the new area will be over 10,000 square yards, but split into two parts—one part near the road, and the other behind the clump of trees some fifty to sixty yards away. Furthermore, speakers will thus be able to choose between the somewhat noisy conditions which exist at present on that part of the area adjacent to the new road and the new area behind the trees, which will be further away from the traffic and, therefore, I think, more acceptable to the speakers, and at any rate kinder to their throats.
Now as to processions. It has been claimed that it will be more difficult for processions to enter the park and assemble at Speakers' Corner than it is at present. I agree that under the new scheme processions will either have to enter the park through the pedestrian subways—and I realise that in that case they may have some difficulty in avoiding breaking ranks, or at least breaking step—or through the new gates into the park, which will be placed across the North Carriage Drive at one end of the new gravel area of Speakers' Corner. I have no reason to believe that the police will be in any way less co-operative in seeing that processions safely reach the haven of the park than they are at present. I can see that processions coming from Trafalgar Square may have to march an extra 200 yards to reach the corner, but as I understand that one of the purposes of procession is to be seen marching, this may not be entirely a disadvantage. On the other hand, processions originating in the Paddington-Bayswater Road area will, in fact, be able to reach Speakers' Corner more easily than at present.
In the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked me either that the Government should accept an Amendment on the lines of the Amendment he now proposes, or that the Government should make a carefully worded declaration to similar effect. For the reasons which I have given—this is an important matter, and it is for that reason that I have taken a long time over it—the Government feel impelled to resist such an Amendment. But they have no hesitation in meeting the point made by the noble Viscount by saying categorically that they intend to

963
provide for the benefit of speakers at Speakers' Corner an area not less than that which they now enjoy. Your Lordships realise that the area proposed is considerably larger and that other facilities will remain exactly the same.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I must confess that I regard the answers which the noble Lord has given for not accepting this Amendment as completely unconvincing. I recognise that at present this right is enjoyed by tradition and custom, but this right is being interfered with. Admittedly the Government are recognising the right, but they are removing the venue, and removing it to a place which may be less convenient for speakers and not so satisfactory for processions. There is no reason to believe that, if it suited any future Government, they would not try to do the same, or even, in spite of the assurances of the noble Lord, who can speak only for his Government and not for the future, to withhold the concession altogether. If it should be thought necessary in the interests of traffic, there is no reason why a future Government should not do away with this particular facility. At least, if they wanted to do so it ought to be necessary for them to come and seek the repeal of this provision, and everyone would be on notice.
I cannot see why the proposed clause cannot be incorporated in the Bill. The noble Lord tried to say that it would be inappropriate, but he did not explain why. May I just read the clause—it is very simple:
" Nothing in this Act shall authorise the removal of any facilities for public meeting or procession customarily available in Hyde Park unless equal alternative facilities are provided."
That is exactly what the Government are proposing to do. But we feel that, having been disturbed once, we are entitled to have a definite statutory assurance this time that if we have to be disturbed again we shall get something as good as we have at the present time. I hope that on further consideration the Government will feel that they can give this satisfaction which will be greatly appreciated by all those who use Speakers' Corner, either for speaking or for coming and listening to the speakers. There would be at least an assurance that it is safeguarded in an Act of Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like also to support this Amendment. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, aright, I think he took the point that we were trying to insert in the Bill some protection, whereas in fact the wording is merely that nothing shall authorise the removal of certain facilities. This is a purely negative clause for the protection of the public. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned at a previous stage of this Bill that certain facilities granted in respect of Trafalgar Square are in fact being arbitrarily withdrawn. We understand that there are to be movable railings which can be taken up when certain processions go into the park. It is possible that some authority, perhaps not well advised, might consider that a certain procession was not a suitable procession and refuse to take up these movable railings. Whilst that is unlikely to happen, I think protection should be given in case such an incident were to arise.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot quite understand the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that some future Government may do away with the right of speaking in the park. This Amendment does not deal with that matter at all. It says merely that those rights, or customary rights, shall not be done away with under this Bill. But if a future Government intend to do away with the right of public speaking in the park, they will do away with it. This does not authorise public speaking in the park. It merely says it shall not be done away with under this Bill.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he is mistaken. We are asserting, and the Minister agrees, that there exists a certain right; but it is a right by use and custom. In this Amendment it becomes a statutory right and, therefore, cannot be removed without legislation.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with respect I suppose that my noble friend Lord Mancroft will reply, but the Amendment does not read like that to me. It reads to me that any rights that exist shall not be taken away under this Bill. It does not give those rights. Those rights are there by custom, and if any future Government want to do away with them

965
they will take other steps to do so. It seems to me that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is taking a technical point on the wording of this Amendment, or is he objecting merely to any statutory protection for Speakers' Corner? If it is merely a technical point, I am sure that he and I can get together and frame a more suitable form of words.
LORD DERWENT: What I am saying is that this Amendment does nothing, because it gives no statutory right.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, every speaker so far has assumed that this clause deals with rights. I find no mention of rights in the new clause, and I have never known a clause give rights if it did not mention the word, or some word front which a right could be inferred. I do not think the removal of facilities has anything to do with rights.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
3.20 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Licensing of slaughterhouses —general]:
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
" (6) A slaughterhouse licence shall not be granted or renewed under this section or at all in respect of any premises adjoining or forming part of a building used as a dwelling."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will observe that this proposed Amendment is exactly the same in wording as one which I moved on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may well wonder exactly why I have done so. I assure your Lordships that in the ordinary course of events it would not be a thing I should do. However, at that time I withdrew my Amendment I put a question to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who has had the courtesy to give me a reply, as to the amount of meat which was slaughtered in slaughterhouses attached to dwellings. His reply has somewhat disconcerted me, because the basis of his opposition to my Amendment on the Committee stage, as I understood it, was that to close these slaughterhouses
966
would disorganise the supply of meat and possibly actually cut it off to a number of people. One naturally assumed, therefore, that there must be a very large quantity of meat passing through those slaughterhouses, and that the Department must be aware of the quantity.
He will excuse me if I quote from his letter, in which he says:
" No information is available about the amount of meat treated at this kind of slaughterhouse. There is no statutory provision for them "—
the local authorities—
" to collect such information, and the Minister of Agriculture has no power to require them to give him the information."
That really, I suggest makes complete nonsense of the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to this particular Amendment. I do not intend to re-argue the question. It was a point which I think was pretty generally accepted on all sides, and the only reason why we withdrew the Amendment at Committee stage was that we supposed very large and substantial quantities of meat must be going through and that the Government had reason to think that the supplies of meat would be dislocated by such a prohibition or the closing of such slaughterhouses.
I would add that it seems to me—I may he wrong the noble Earl will correct me if I am—that in so far as these (as is admitted by everybody) highly undesirable slaughterhouses which now exist are concerned, there is no provision in the Bill for their eventual closing. There is no stage at which, unless I am much mistaken, the slaughterhouse which is at present attached to a dwelling and which will be licensed by the local authority can ever be closed on the ground that it is attached to a dwelling-house. There is provision that new slaughterhouses will not be licensed if they are attached to dwellings but there is no such provision where they are already licensed. Therefore, so far as I can see, the prospect is that these slaughterhouses which now exist will always exist. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell me I am wrong, but I think that that is so. As I say, I do not intend to repeat what I said on Committee stage. We are probably all in agreement that slaughterhouses attached to dwellings are undesirable, and the only point is whether we can conveniently do without them. Her

967
Majesty's Government's opposition to this Amendment is founded on, I can only assume, the gazings of the Minister into the crystal ball which they keep in the Department for that purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 46, at end insert the said subseetion.—(Lord Faringdon.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for his explanation why he has moved this Amendment again, but for the reasons which I shall give the Government cannot accept the Amendment. As I explained on the Committee stage, the Amendment goes much further than Clause 5 of the Bill, which deals with the same subject. That clause will prohibit the granting of a licence for any new slaughterhouse where the slaughterhall, the part of the premises where the animals are actually slaughtered and dressed, forms part of a dwelling. The Amendment would, however, prohibit any part of the slaughterhouse premises, such, for example, as the lairage or any storage building, from forming part of a dwelling, and this would give rise to a difficult problem at many existing slaughterhouses.
Examples have been brought to our notice of where a slaughterhall forms part of the dwelling, but, as I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, complete information on the number of such cases is not available and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has no power at present to require collection by local authorities of particulars of these cases. However, although we do not know exactly how much meat is produced in this kind of slaughterhouse, we feel that any proposal to close them at once would cause serious disturbance to the distribution of meat. This would apply particularly in the rural areas where slaughterhouses may form part of the shop and the dwelling place of retail butchers trading in the villages and in some of the smaller country towns.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a question on that point? Were slaughterhouses of this type actually in use during the period of control?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, they were not all in use. Some of them were, certainly. The Amendment would therefore involve a change which it would be unreasonable to make in the present circumstances. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of Clause 3(3) of the Bill under which the Minister will have power to direct local authorities to include in their slaughterhouse report any particulars about existing slaughterhouses in their districts. My right honourable friend the Minister will therefore consider asking for particulars to be given in these reports of existing slaughterhouse premises where the slaughterhall forms part of a dwelling, together with an indication whether it is expected that such premises will or will not in future comply with the prescribed standards of construction and equipment. The collection of those particulars will thus give a complete picture of the situation and will enable the Minister to review the problem if necessary. As your Lordships will appreciate, the main object of the Bill is to bring about better standards in our slaughterhouses by improvements over a period. This cannot be achieved immediately, and time must be allowed for the trade to develop either by constructing new slaughterhouses or by improving existing ones.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could answer two questions. From what he said in his opening remarks, I rather inferred that he might have been more amiably disposed towards this Amendment if I had substituted the word "slaughter-hall" for "slaughterhouse . I should like to ask him whether that is the case and whether if I did so change my Amendment he would be prepared to accept it. The other point which he has not covered is the point about existing slaughterhouses which are attached to dwellings—their acceptability in the future. If I read this Bill correctly, the Minister is taking no power at any time in the future to close slaughterhouses which are attached to dwellings. They are not being given a limited life for convenience sake; they are being given a permanent existence. Therefore, so long as they satisfy the requirements in other respects, then in this, in my view, particularly urgent respect they may go on existing for all time and the Minister

969
has no power to add this particular qualification to what is needed in an approved slaughterhouse. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would be prepared to accept either of two things: would he be prepared to accept the Amendment if substituted "slaughterhall" for slaughterhouse"? Alternatively would

IRAQ
3.42 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will make a statement which my right honourable friend is making in another place about the situation in Iraq. It is as follows.
" I have little to add to Press and wireless reports. A telegram received from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Baghdad at 7.30 a.m. this morning reported that Baghdad Radio was in the hands of a revolutionary Government and had announced the establishment of an Iraqi Republic with Brigadier Abdul Karim Qasam as Prime Minister. The where-
970
he at a later stage himself introduce in the Bill some power to enable the Minister to close such undersirable slaughterhouses at some future date?
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Pakenham, L.

Crook, L.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Faringdon, L.

Silkin, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sinha, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Ammon, L.

Henderson, L.

Amulree, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Swinton, E.

Forbes, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Waldegrave, E.

Grantchester, L.

Winterton, E.

Hampton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hawke, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Crookshank, V.

Hemingford, L.

Lothian, M.

Falmouth, V.

Leconfield, L.

Goschen, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ingleby, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bathurst, E.

Masserecne and Ferrard, V.

Merrivale, L.

Bradford, E.

Soulbury, V.

Milverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Saltoun, L.

Dudley, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Sandford, L.

Galloway, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gosford, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Home, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Swaythling, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Conesford, L.

Teviot, L.

Perth, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

abouts of the King, Crown Prince and Nuri Said were unknown and there had been some fighting round the Palace where the King was believed to have been in residence. There were considerable demonstrations in the streets. The United Kingdom Information Office and Consular Section building, which was surrounded by crowds was evacuated.
Her Majesty's Ambassador added that Baghdad Radio had broadcast an appeal to respect foreign Missions. All Embassy staff and families were safe and he had advised the British community to stay at home. Nothing, however, has been heard from the Embassy since 9 a.m., when it was reported they would not be sending further messages for the time being owing to the presence of rioters in the courtyard. A telegram despatched at 10 a.m. this morning has been received from the Officer Commanding the Royal Air Force at Habbaniya that all was well with British personnel there ".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are indebted for the statement made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. This is a very difficult matter upon which to comment at the present time and I do not propose to do so. Comparing this statement with later messages received on the tapes, which cannot yet have been checked as coming from official sources, it would appear that the position is even worse than is made out in this official statement. Obviously there must be a very confused position at the present time, and I am sure that the whole House will be anxious that the Foreign Secretary should continue to keep in closest possible touch and secure all the information he can. I hope that at whatever time further information may come in, Her Majesty's Government will be able to communicate it to Parliament—if not during the course of to-day's Sitting then during to-morrow's session.
In the absence of some assurance from Her Majesty's Government, the reference towards the end of the statement to the absence of messages since 9 o'clock this morning because of the presence of rioters in the courtyard cannot but add to anxiety with regard to British lives in the area. I take it that we may look to Her Majesty's Government for an assurance now that every possible step will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure the safety of British lives in that territory.
3.45 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition has said. In thanking the noble Earl for his statement may I express the sympathy of the whole House, which I am sure it would be your Lordships' wish to offer, to those connected with the King, the Crown Prince, and Nuri Said in these tragic circumstances, as well as to those having friends or relatives in that area, who must be feeling considerable anxiety at the present time.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for their remarks, and I am sure it is wise that we should not make any further comment at this stage. Naturally Her Majesty's Government have great anxiety over the
972
safety of British civilians. They have this in the forefront of their minds and I will certainly keep the House informed of all news as soon as it is corroborated.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
Report stage resumed.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would crave the indulgence of the House to clear up a point which received considerable discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill in relation to Clause 1. In the debate on that clause several noble Lords expressed concern about the way in which planning permission could be given for a slaughterhouse. They pointed out that a local planning authority could give planning permission without advertising or giving notice that planning permission had been sought. There is a real problem here and I agreed to look into it.
This is really a matter that should be dealt with in planning legislation rather than slaughterhouse legislation. I have therefore discussed it with my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and on his behalf I am able to tell your Lordships that he is very carefully considering the point. He tells me that there are, of course, other kinds of development which might be regarded as unpleasant and he wishes to consider whether there is not some way of regularising planning procedure in all these cases in the general sense suggested by several noble Lords at the Committee stage. I cannot be more specific about this matter, but I can give an assurance that my right honourable friend is giving it his most urgent personal attention.
Clause 3 [Reports on slaughterhouse facilities]:
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as both the Amendments to Clause 3 standing in my name deal with a similar point it may be convenient to your Lordships to discuss them together. They are both drafting Amendments to clarify the phrase:
" in full in relation to premises in respect of which a new slaughterhouse licence falls to be granted."
These words help to define a date referred to in subsection (2) and the construction standard referred to subsection (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert (" of any one or more classes or descriptions ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved,—
Page 8, line 17, leave out from (" premises ") to (" being ") in line 19 and insert (" of any one or more classes or descriptions ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Grant of new slaughterhouse licences after submission of report]:
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (2), after "licence", where that word first occurs, to insert:
" after the submission of their report aforesaid, being an application to which subsection (5) of section three of this Act does not apply and".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the two Amendments to Clause 4, which make good a procedural defect in the Bill, deal with the same point and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss them, and also a consequential Amendment in Clause 6, together. Clause 3 (6) provides that applications for new slaughterhouse licences received during the two months period allowed for making representations to the Minister about the local authority's slaughterhouse report must be considered by the Minister before he accepts the report. He has the power to direct that they shall be deemed to have been included in the report. If he does that, they carry the right to a licence just as if they had been made during the freedom period. What is missing is specific provision for the procedure to be followed where the Minister decides not to give such a direction. For those eases the Amendments will require the Minister to direct the local authority to refuse the applications. Under the Bill as it stands any application turned down by the Minister under Clause 3 (6) would have to be considered again under Clause 4 (2) and the First Schedule. This was never intended and would be a great inconvenience to all concerned.
The consequential Amendment to Clause 6, at page 13, line 29, provides that there is to be no right of appeal to a magistrates' court for certain refusals. These are where an application
974
is refused in pursuance of a direction by the Minister under the new subsection (3) of Clause 4. This is in line with the principle embodied in the present provisions of Clause 6 (3); that is, where an application falls to be considered by the Minister, his decision will turn primarily on considerations of policy. In such a case it is not appropriate that an appeal should lie to the courts. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, after (" licence ") insert ("after the submission of their report aforesaid, being an application to which subsection (5) of section three of this Act does not apply and").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
(" (3) Where in the case of an application of which a copy has been forwarded to the Minister by a local authority under subsection (5) of section three of this Act, being an application for the grant of a new slaughterhouse licence, the Minister determines not to give such a direction as is mentioned in subsection of that section, he shall direct the authority to refuse the application forthwith, and the authority shall comply with that direction.")—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Special grounds for, and appeals against, certain refusals]:
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, after (" Act ") insert (" or under subsection (3) of that section ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Grants for meat inspection at slaughterhouses]:
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment relating to the conditions about which the Minister must be satisfied before he makes contributions to a local authority towards the cost of meat inspection. One of the conditions is that the authority must have inspected in the year concerned more meat than is estimated to have been consumed by their own population. The present wording is that the quantity inspected must appear to the Minister
" to exceed … what is likely to be required for consumption in the authority's district."

975
The phrase "what is likely to be" was intended to allow for estimation, because the amount would not be exactly known. We see some risk, however, of its being interpreted as meaning "future requirements". That would be inappropriate, because the scheme, which is already in operation, is concerned with contributions towards expenses incurred in the preceding financial year. The wording now proposed should avoid this possible misunderstanding.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 26, leave out (" is likely to be") and insert (" it appears to him should be regarded as ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.55 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Meat inspection in slaughterhouses
" . The Minister shall, within a period not exceeding five years from the passing of this Act, make regulations which shall make provision for securing—

(a) the inspection of all animals intended for slaughter for sale for human consumption, and

(b) of all carcases of animals so slaughtered and no meat shall be sold for human consumption unless there has been such inspection:

Provided that where by reason of accidental injury, illness or exposure to infection it is necessary that an animal shall be slaughtered without delay and notice is given to the local authority as soon as is reasonably possible, whether before or after the slaughtering takes place, the said animal but not the carcase thereof shall be deemed to have been inspected."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl another question, to which I have not had an answer—though I do not blame him for that. I asked him on Committee stage whether he could tell me what percentage of the 80 per cent. of the total quantity of meat he claimed to be inspected was inspected both on the hoof and in the carcase, and whether the 80 per cent. was a total, global percentage, covering all meat which had been inspected either on the hoof or in the carcase. He informs me (if he will forgive my repeating what he has told me privately) that in fact the 80 per cent. is inspection of carcases. That is of very considerable interest to me and rather reinforces the point I made. It means that a very small percentage
976
of meat is fully inspected—that is, inspected both on the hoof and after killing.
At the Committee stage, when withdrawing a similar Amendment, I suggested that I might put down an Amendment which made some allowance for the fact that there is, as we all know, a very considerable shortage of inspectors at the present time. The noble Earl said he was sure that his noble friend the Minister was most anxious that meat should be inspected, and he would do everything possible to ensure that a satisfactory or an adequate number of inspectors was available to inspect all meat, but that he could not accept my Amendment at that time. I took his point, and your Lordships will observe that I have now introduced a provision for the insistence of 100 per cent. inspection after a period of five years. I very much prefer to know that something must be done within a given time, rather than rely on the good intentions of Ministers and officials. To be given an actual datum line by which time something has got to be done tends to produce the desired result very much more frequently. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment. I think it is an important and valuable Amendment. However, I shall not, if he rejects it, press it to a Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Faringdon.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I appreciate that noble Lords opposite are deeply concerned that, as soon as possible, all meat at our slaughterhouses should be inspected. The Government share that concern very much indeed. However, I am afraid that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this new clause, because, in the first place, it is inappropriate that a compulsory time limit should be laid upon the Minister over a problem which he cannot in all respects control. Meat inspection, as the noble Lord knows, is delegated to local authorities. The difficulties (one of which, as he has already said, is staffing) can be overcome only by joint efforts on the part of local government and the trade, as well as of the Ministry. The noble Lord has distinguished in his clause the two parts of the full process of inspection. Our efforts

977
are at present concentrated on the inspection of carcases, or post-mortem inspection. Difficulties remain before we secure such inspection in full, but I am hopeful of their solution. In fact, the figure which I gave your Lordships on the last stage of this Bill, of some 80 per cent., was rather an under-estimation. We have since then had some new figures, and the proportion is, in fact, nearer 90 per cent.
LORD FARINGDON: Carcases only, I presume?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is carcases only. The inspection of animals before slaughter is, frankly, not common in England and Wales at present.
The organisation of full ante-mortem inspection would demand a great deal of thought from the Department and bodies representative of local government and the professions concerned. It might be a very considerable time before enough qualified staff were available. It would, therefore, be quite unreasonable that a time limit should be written into the Bill now. Moreover, the proposed new clause is really unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Agriculture, gave an assurance in another place that he and the Minister of Health would make new regulations at the earliest practicable date. Powers to do so already exist. In the light of that, and as they are well aware of the importance of meat inspection to public health, the Ministers need no statutory compulsion of the kind suggested by the noble Lord. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT, 1839 (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
TRADING REPRESENTATIONS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

AGRICULTURE BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Repeal of powers of supervision, direction and dispossession under Part II of Agriculture Act, 1947, and Part II of Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948
1.—(1) So much of Part II of the Agriculture Act. 1947 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1947") as provides for supervision orders, and for the giving of directions to and the dispossession of owners or occupiers on grounds of bad estate management or bad husbandry, that is to say sections twelve to twenty of that Act, shall cease to have effect, and all entries in the register of local land charges relating to supervision orders shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, be deleted.
(2) So much of Part II of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948 (in this Act referred to as "the Scottish Act of 1948") as provides for warning notices, and for the giving of directions to and the dispossession of owners or occupiers on grounds of bad estate management or bad husbandry, that is to say sections twenty-seven to thirty-four of that Act, shall cease to have effect.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I beg to move the omission of this clause. We have not put down an Amendment to it, because all we can do is to vote against it. I am glad I managed to get back in time for the opening of this debate, because I feel very strongly about it. I have to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, that I was not able to stay on the Second Reading and listen to his reply, but I have read his reply now, and I can agree neither with him nor with the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, that there was no background or case for my submitting to the House that this Part of the Bill is a betrayal of British agriculture. I was rather amazed at the percentage arguments that were used by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, in his reply to me the other day: that about 1 per cent. of the farmers were concerned and their food production was 0.01 per cent.; while they used an even smaller

979
percentage of the actual use of fertilisers. This referred to the people who were under supervision: not to those who were under supervision at any time during the operation of the controls, but the people who were apparently under supervision later.
I want to say quite frankly that your Lordships ought to take careful note, first of all, that this clause effects a most important change in regard to nearly two-thirds of the farmers in the country. Nearly two-thirds of the farmers are tenant farmers, and I am not interested, therefore, in the noble Earl's percentages that he gave in his reply on July 3. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 210 (No. 87), col. 603]. The whole principle of this question is that they will be put into a different category from owner-occupiers. Owner-occupiers will no longer be under the necessity of having some supervision and control as some justification for the public money they receive in the way of subsidies. But all the practically corresponding sanctions can be taken, apparently, against the rest of the industry, the tenant farmers—nearly two-thirds of the total number of farmers—through the use of landlord practice. Now, that is the bare fact of this change. We submit that this comes on top of a steady undermining of what the normal results of administering the other parts of the Agriculture Act, 1947, should be.
There is a great deal of talk about the period of stability and of the long-term guarantees. By the way, the first period of guarantee cannot, under the 1957 Act, go beyond four years. In my view, the Government are betraying the agricultural industry in this matter, in view of the pledges they gave to the industry in the General Elections of 1950 and 1951. Those Elections showed basically the feeling of the country at large, and there was not the slightest indication in either of those Elections that the Conservative Party, when a Government, intended to take any such action as they are now taking with regard to Part II of the 1947 Act. The undermining of the general economic position of the tenant farmers, as well as of other farmers, has been proved to me over and over again by the various journals I read week after week, the publications of both the farming and the motor industries. I find a general summary of their views in a headline,
980
not from a Labour paper or from a farming journal, but from a publication called Farming Report, which is published by a large firm of producers of tractors and agricultural equipment for farmers from whom they want to continue to get orders for the support of the British engineering industry. The headline to interviews with some of these farmers reads:
" The more proficient we get, the less our reward."
That sums up the attitude of a large proportion of farmers to-day.
The only benefit left to them as tenant farmers was that they could not be displaced, under security of tenure, unless a properly constituted county agricultural executive committee, of farmers who knew them, knew their circumstances and what they could do, were satisfied, after they had been given the opportunity of a period of supervision, that they should be displaced. Now the Government are changing from that and giving power back to the landlords, with submission to a tribunal. We shall have to wait and see what the result of this further piece of Conservative denigration of the pledges made by all Parties to the farmers since the last war will be on the economic position of the individual farmer and its general effect upon the industry as a whole. I think it is a most retrograde step to take away public supervision of the spending of the subsidies which are offered because, first of all, they ought to be adequate, and, if they are, they ought to bring a reasonable reward to the farmers in expanding production. Their net income ought not to be going down all the time, as it has been over the last six and a half years, largely owing to the Government's economic policy, when at the same time there has been a steady increase in the costs to the farmers.
Unless the Government are very careful, they are going to see an undermining of the contribution which has been made so bravely and efficiently in all the years since the war ended and which has produced such a development of agriculture that it has become a predominant factor in the balance of payments. What is the answer of the Government?—that the landlords will not misuse their power and will always be subject, afterwards, to an agricultural tribunal. That is

981
about the only answer we can get. I am bound to say that I would not let any Bill with this clause pass through this or any other Chamber without trying to see whether we can get it defeated. Therefore, I shall vote against the clause.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have listened with great care to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I think that his speech fell into two sections. He referred, first of all, to the owner-occupier. I admit that, without the old sanctions, the owner-occupier will give up farming only when he does it so badly that it no longer pays him to go on farming. That is the sanction that will apply to the owner-occupier, and it is the proper sanction. The more general part of the noble Viscount's speech was that the Government had been guilty of "general denigration" of agriculture, a "general betrayal" and so on. I really do not see what that has to do with Clause 1 of the Bill, which repeals Part II of the 1947 Act. It could be argued the other way. The Government are not deserting agriculture. I do not believe that any Government would wish to desert agriculture, and the taking away of disciplinary powers, which have not been used and could not be used properly to-day, cannot be described in that way. It is a great exaggeration to say that.
Agriculture has done its task extremely well over the past decade. Productivity has increased. There has been a vital and a valuable dollar saving. No Government is going to throw away or neglect agriculture—certainly not this Government, and to say that taking away these powers of supervision is to do that is, in my view, to outrage normal logic. But as the noble Viscount has raised this point, I will deal with it. I think it is established that there are many people who say that they would like to see these powers remain on the Statute Book on the tacit understanding that nobody is going to use them. If that is in anybody's mind, it is a dishonest argument, which should not be used, and one which no courageous and proper Government can use.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the noble Earl charging the Opposition with dishonesty on this matter? I should like to be clear about his language. If so, that is not the
982
position at all. The position is that we say that this power has been most useful, that it has been allowed to fall much more into disuse during the office of the present Government and that, if we were in office, we would see that it was properly used to justify the expenditure of public money and to maintain efficiency and encourage expansion.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. Of course, I am not charging him or his Party with dishonesty. I said that some people have used that argument, and it is an argument that I think we must all combine to say is not proper. The fact remains that if these powers are to remain on the Statute Book, and as the noble Viscount says, are to be used, we have to find somebody to use them. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke of this point on Second Reading.
After the Government had accepted the proposal of the Franks Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was a member, the way in which these powers would have had to be operated would have been different from the way in which they had been used before. In our view, we should have had to put the agricultural executive committees in an impossible position by taking away from them, as the Franks Report said we should, their adjudicating function, leaving them with rôle of prosecutor. When that has to be considered, surely the proper thing to do, before you go into detail as to how these powers are to be altered, is to say: Are these powers necessary at all? The conclusion we were bound to come to was that they were not. The 63 per cent. increase in production over pre-war has not been arrived at by the use of half a dozen or so disciplinary powers that have been imposed, but by the good sense and good will of the major part of the farming community, backed by the National Agricultural Advisory Service.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And backed up, too, by the National Farmers' Union.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The National Farmers' Union have certainly backed the agricultural production drive; and as I was saying, the industry have a very good record. This clause must, of course, stand.
EARL WINTERTON: Before your Lordships go to a Division, I should like to protest, I hope politely, against the vigour and vehemence of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which I think is all the more regrettable in view of the position that he occupies in the country and in this House. He has no authority for saying that this is a betrayal of agriculture. As the Minister has just pointed out, the National Farmers' Union have not said so. The National Farmers' Union often use strong language when they disagree with the actions of any Government; and if they agreed with the noble Viscount opposite they would have said so. I think his speech is calculated to do harm.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. They have said so, and in fact supplied the Opposition with their views against this clause before it came to this House from another place.
EARL WINTERTON: I do not think they have used the very violent language (I stand subject to correction) of "betrayal". They may have objected to the clause, but the words "betrayal of agriculture" are strong words to use, and, I think, calculated to do harm. I do not want to get into controversy with the noble Viscount, but we all know the attitude of the Opposition to the question of control. I think the Government are right to do what they have done, and I hope that the agricultural industry will not take too much notice of the speech of the noble Viscount.
LORD SILKIN: It ill becomes the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, to rebuke my noble friend for violence of language: it reminds me of Satan rebuking sin. The noble Earl has never been unduly restrained in expressing his views—and good luck to him ! But he must not complain if my noble friend expresses himself vigorously because he feels vigorous. Let me clear up one point. I think the noble Earl who spoke for the Government gave the impression that the National Farmers' Union were in favour of the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I did not say that.
LORD SILKIN: Then I have nothing more to say as to that. But the fact remains—and let us be clear about it—
984
the National Farmers' Union are against the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act. On the Second Reading debate I read out extracts from a letter which they had sent to me and other noble Lords, and it is clear that, even after the proceedings in the other place, they still remained unconvinced and thought it wrong that Part II of the Act should be repealed. The National Farmers' Union speak for the vast majority of farmers; they have not been repudiated by the farmers, and therefore it must be assumed that the farmers themselves are against the repeal of Part II of the 1947 Act.
If this was such a frustrating business; if they were against control, and control was such an evil, why is it that they are against the repeal of Part II of that Act? The reason is, I think, abundantly clear: that they suspect that this is the first stage towards the repeal of the subsidy. And they have some ground for feeling that way. It is that all this has happened before in exactly the same way. It was a long time ago, and if I quoted the date noble Lords would say that things are much different to-day from what they were then. But it was a Government of the same political colour that repealed the Agriculture Act, after similar action by this House—my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough gave a quotation on Second Reading. They really do believe there is a precedent for their fears, and that they are not at all groundless. First of all, you remove control and you remove any supervision certainly on the owner-occupiers—the supervision of the tenant farmer is indirect and is exercised by the landlord—and then you say: How can you possibly justify giving public money by way of subsidy without any assurance as to the efficiency of the industry?
It is true that there has been an increase in output, due to a variety of reasons, and I am willing to accept that one of them is some increase in efficiency. There has been a great deal of mechanisation, of course, and a good deal of improvement in that direction. But this removal of control and supervision will be used, they fear, as a reason for the removal of subsidy in due course. While it is a fact that the Agriculture Act passed last year gives some guarantee, it is for a limited period and on a declining basis. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, said that the Government were content to base

985
the efficiency on the practical ground that the owner-occupier would not continue to farm unless he was making a profit; he would have a control of the financial result. I deny that. There are many farmers who are farming to-day, owner-occupiers, who are losing money, and who will continue to lose money and do not mind losing money, for the reason I gave on Second Reading—namely, that they are able to set off their losses in farming against their other income; and where they are sur-tax payers, especially in the higher categories, their losses are to a large extent met by the Exchequer. Therefore, they have no objection to losing money. I have met a number of people who proudly tell me of how much money they are losing, and they do not mind a bit; it does not cost them very much. Therefore, that is no guarantee of efficiency.
There is a fear that if this sort of thing goes on there will be produced the argument that it is wrong that the Government should spend on subsidy for this sort of purpose and for creating inefficiency. It is not those people we are concerned about. We are concerned about the ordinary farmer who farms for his livelihood, who depends on farming for his livelihod, and knows that he cannot compete against the people of foreign countries who export their goods to this country. I happen to know one particular aspect of farming, and I know perfectly well that without that subsidy it would be impossible for the British farmer to continue. It is that person I am concerned with, and it is that person who fears that his livelihood would be taken away from him by the removal of the subsidy. He has no real assurance that the subsidy will continue, and he fears, as I have said, that this clause will be used as an argument.
The noble Earl also put forward the case that as a result of the Franks Report it had been necessary to review the whole question, and that on the review the question had arisen as to whether or not supervision was justified at all. I should like to repeat what I said on Second Reading. The Franks Committee did not recommend that there should be a removal of supervision. All they recommended was that there should be a further examination of the procedure under which supervision was taking place. It would have been perfectly easy to alter the procedure: we
986
on this side are not standing by the exact details of the procedure for supervision under the 1947 Act. I hope that we can eliminate the Franks Report, except as giving rise to the need for an examination of the procedure. I was a member of the Franks Committee. I signed the Report, and I agreed that some amendment in the procedure was necessary. But the Committee went out of their way to say that they were not at all concerned with the policy.
As to the policy of abandoning supervision, the noble Earl justified that step on the ground that the industry was so efficient, that there had been so few supervision orders made in recent years, that it would be right to abandon the policy altogether. I have already given one reason why the farmers fear the abandonment of supervision. I feel that supervision, with subsequent eviction, if necessary, was right in the interests of efficiency. It was welcomed by the industry because, coupled with supervision, there was all the advice and help that was given by the agricultural executive committees. It was being given to the farmers by their own neighbours and friends. Those farmers who were the victims of supervision welcomed it because they received a great deal of help, friendly advice and assistance. Nobody felt it at all oppressive, and we could have achieved the same sort of results by an alteration in the procedure, which would not have been open to the objections set out by the Franks Committee. The noble Earl has done nothing to convince me that this action is in the least justified. Though I do not suppose for a moment the Government are going to alter their minds, I feel that we on this side have to register a strong opposition to this change, which is uncalled for and will create a great deal of apprehension in the minds of the small owner-occupiers of farms.
LORD WISE: Before we close this discussion, I should like to ask the Government a question in regard to their intention in respect of the sections of Part II of the 1947 Act which this clause does not seek to repeal. It is obvious—or it should be obvious, at any rate—that both sides of the Committee are anxious that agriculture should play its full part in the life of the nation and should not go down, as we consider at

987
the moment it may do. It is necessary both for the owners and the tenants to do whatever they can to promote production.
The sections in Part II of the 1947 Act which are to be repealed are Sections 12 to 20. Sections 9, 10 and 11 deal with the question of good estate management and good husbandry. Section 9 says:
" The following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of securing that owners of agricultural land fulfil their responsibilities "—
and this is the point I wish to make here—
" to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, and that occupiers of agricultural land fulfil their responsibilities to farm the land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry."
How are the Government going to enforce those rules? They cannot. There is no process in this particular Bill to ensure that the owners exercise good estate management, and there is a definite process in this Bill whereby the tenants carry out their obligations under these sections of the 1947 Act which we are still leaving as part of the law of the land. I am anxious that agriculture should play its proper part in accordance with the 1947 Act. I am particularly distressed that the Government are removing the supervision powers in this particular Part of the 1947 Act because I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who was a member of the Committee which steered that Bill through another place. It is a matter of regret, therefore, that the labour which we put into making it a good Act should now be set aside by Her Majesty's Government.
EARL DE LA WARR: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, because I do not think it is the desire of the House that on each stage of a Bill we should embark on what is really a repetition of our Second Reading speeches. I should like briefly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving in such wealthy circles that most of his friends can afford to lose money.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is very cheap.
EARL DE LA WARR: I congratulate the noble Lord also in the persistence with which he and his friends seek
988
to exploit politically the admitted disquiet—
LORD SILKIN: I must correct the noble Earl. I did not say they were friends of mine.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps they were not friends—acquaintances. Obviously he still moves in very good circles. I congratulate the noble Lord also on the persistent attempts to exploit politically the admitted disquiet of the National Farmers' Union at a certain stage of this Bill. There is one perfectly simple issue which arises from all three speeches to which we have listened. There is only one point, and that is that noble Lords on the other side of the House have this basic belief in control of our actions by Government. They are not the least impressed by the advance, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, mentioned, that agriculture has made during the last two years, with very little pressure from these powers of control, but as a result of education, advice and economic pressure, due to decreased recoupment.
LORD REA: Not all noble Lords on this side of the House take the line the noble Earl suggests.
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept the correction. I was referring to Her Majesty's Opposition. I make only one other point. Why should noble Lords on those Benches continually talk only of agriculture and farmers as needing this particular form of control? Farming is not the only industry in this country which receives assistance. It may receive assistance in a particular form different from that of other industries, but a multitude of industries are receiving a great deal of assistance in the form of tariffs and other ways and noble Lords opposite do not suggest that there should be control over all those other industries.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That may be, but the noble Earl does not want to listen to the history on this point of the Party he has fairly recently rejoined. Not many years ago he was in favour of controls in agriculture. But, in any case, based on the 1920 and 1921 experiences which have been quoted again to-day by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, we have a very good reason for attaching controls where large sums of public money are necessarily spent for the

989
support of an industry. The Party opposite has for years and years backed a large policy of high protection or tariffs for other industries with no guarantee of efficiency.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. several instances which I personally have known of where members of agricultural executive committees have been extremely bad farmers themselves and the farmers in the neighbourhood have absolutely detested the agricultural executive committee because it has had people on it who have been quite unfit to have those powers. Powers of dispossession ought surely to be the prerogative of the Crown and should not be wielded by these jacks-in-office. I know of an instance where a friend of mine was being harried by the agricultural executive committee the whole time for inefficient farming. They told my friend that he must sack his bailiff. He was very loyal and said: "I cannot do that". But after a time he sacked him, and in six months' time this same man came back as an area supervisor. Really, it is quite incredible.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think a farmer welcomes the landlord any more than he does the agricultural advisory committee.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want to delay your Lordships, and I do not want to get into a Second Reading debate, but there are one or two points which I naturally must answer. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred in his opening remarks to some organ of the agricultural Press which he had been reading and which was against this Bill. I took the trouble this morning to read the current numbers of the agricultural journals—I do not say all. because I do not know how many there are, but I read the well-known glossy-covered ones, at any rate. I was' interested to see that there was not a single comment about the going of this Part II of the Act. That has all died down in the agricultural Press, at any rate this week. That is a point I should like to make because the noble Viscount raised the question of the agricultural Press.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am afraid that that is not an answer to the fact that on July 1
990
—that is, this month—we received a strong submission against this proposal from the National Farmers' Union, whose support at other times you are only too glad to claim, and who were never consulted.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was not talking about the agricultural union but the agricultural Press. I will come, with permission, to this point about the National Farmers' Union, to touch on it very lightly. I do not quite know what noble Lords opposite are asking us to do about it. It is a strange doctrine if they are asking us always to listen to what the National Farmers' Union say and do it. It is very difficult. Of course, it is the Government's duty to hear and consider and weigh up. The only argument used is, "The National Farmers' Union said so, and why do you not do it?" If we are going into that, surely there was a very different atmosphere last March when this Bill was introduced from what there is now. I think there was a genuine misunderstanding then as to what had been the significance of the 1957 Act.
The argument is that if we repeal the second half we can repeal the first half. Of course that is true: we can repeal the whole Act. If we leave the second half, it does not make it less easy for another Government to repeal the whole Act. The initial fear of the National Farmers' Union was that they thought repeal was unnecessary. They seldom called it dangerous or harmful; they said it was unnecessary. They did not realise what the 1957 Act had done, and that is really the whole point. That has made the guarantees more secure than they were because it has put them on a longer-term basis, and that cannot be denied.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: This long-term guarantee to which the noble Earl refers is on a persistently downward basis.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not think we can go into that. The point is you have got longer-term guarantees than you had before. The other question is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said it would have been perfectly easy to make the alterations to the organisation that flowed from our acceptance of the Franks Report. That is a

991
matter of opinion; we did not think it would have been perfectly easy to alter the procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, if I followed him correctly (I am not really sure that I did) asked whether the rules of good husbandry and estate management were repealed or not.
LORD WISE: The point I was making was that you had not repealed them. You had repealed Sections 12 to 20 but not Sections 1 to 11. If you were so concerned with repealing the second part, Part II, why did you not go the whole hog and repeal the whole lot? If you
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear, for the landlords!
Clause 2:
Amendments as to fixing of rents of agricultural holdings
2. In section eight of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1948") and in section seven of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949 (in this Act referred to as "the Scottish Act of 1949"), the following paragraph shall he inserted at the end of subsection (1) (which enables the landlord or tenant of an agricultural holding to demand a reference to arbitration of the question what rent should he payable in respect of the holding)—
do not repeal them, how are you going to carry them out?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course we do not want to repeal the rules of good husbandry and estate management. They are not only relevant to discipline and supervision; they are relevant to notices to quit, certificates of bad husbandry and all that. They remain on the Statute Book. I do not think I should delay your Lordships further on this matter.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS

Hailsham, V. [L. President.]

Crookshank, V.

Hawke, L.

Davidson, V.

Hemingford, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Falmouth, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Gage, V.

Jessel, L.

Ailsa, M.

Goschen, V.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Lambert, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Lothian, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Mancroft, L.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Merrivale, L.

Mills, L.

Albemarle E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Milverton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rea, L.

Bradford, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Russell of Liverpool L.

Galloway, E.

Conesford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Gosford, E.

Derwent, L.

Sandford, L.

Malmesburv, E.

Digby, L.

Strathcarron, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Forbes, L.

Swaythling, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L.

Winterton, E.

Hastings, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Merthyr, L.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Lawson, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

"For the purposes of this subsection the rent properly payable in respect of a holding shall be the rent at which, having regard to the terms of the tenancy (other than those relating to rent), the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord to a willing tenant, there being disregarded (in addition to the matters referred to in the next following subsection) any effect on rent of the fact that the tenant who is a party to the arbitration is in occupation of the holding."
4.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in the proposed new paragraph, to leave out all words after "effect on rent" and to insert instead:
"of a scarcity of holdings of a like character and area in the neighbourhood of the holding."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to alter the conditions

993
required for the assessment of rent. The clause provides a new criterion for the determination of rent by the arbitrator, in that he is not to take into account the fact that the tenant who is a party to the arbitration is in occupation of the holding and is to regard a proper rent as the rent at which the farm may he expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord to a willing tenant. The view we take is, first of all, that he ought to take into account the fact that there is a tenant in occupation—I think that that is a material factor. Secondly, we feel that in present conditions, with a great scarcity of holdings to let, an arbitrator ought to take into account that there is this scarcity and eliminate from what a willing tenant will pay to a willing landlord the element in the rent which is attributable to that scarcity.
We all know that at the present time, with this scarcity, many people are prepared to pay more than an economic rent. The noble Lord shakes his head; but, if he does not know it, I believe that most people know that to-day one can get considerably more than the economic rent for a farm in the open market, simply because people are prepared to pay and are not so much concerned with making profits out of the farm as with the amenity of renting a farm and being able to run it. Until such time as there is an adequate supply of farms in the market, we believe that the rent which a willing tenant pays is highly artificial, and it seems to us quite wrong that we should incorporate into an Act of Parliament such an artificial criterion.
This Amendment is designed to eliminate this artificial factor in the rent, the scarcity value, and to bring back into consideration the fact that a tenant is in occupation of the farm, and has been in occupation, and should receive some special consideration. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that a tenant who is in occupation should be in a better position than a complete outsider to continue renting a farm. As the clause stands at the moment, if somebody comes along and offers £10 a year more than the present tenant is paying it would be possible to evict the sitting tenant because someone is prepared to pay more than he is paying. So the sitting tenant could be evicted and the farm let to a complete stranger. I should not have thought that it was in the interests of farmers that
994
tenancies should be so easily changed. Therefore on both grounds—on the ground that some advantage should be given to the existing tenant and that the scarcity factor should be removed from the rent value—we feel that the criterion laid down in Clause 2 should be altered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out from (" rent ") to end of line 19 and insert (" of a scarcity of holdings of a like character and area in the neighbourhood of the holding.").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, and I hope that in this instance Her Majesty's Government will really consider it very carefully and agree to put it into the Bill. This particular clause is a very difficult one so far as an arbitrator, at any rate, is concerned. It is within the memory of noble Lords that under the 1948 Act it is possible for either the landlord or the tenant to go to arbitration on rent. This particular clause introduces into agricultural legislation something which I believe has never existed before—a description of the basis on which the arbitrator should judge what the rent should be: that to be obtained in the open market by a willing landlord from a willing tenant.
One can understand what is meant by a willing landlord and a willing tenant, but my noble friend has referred to the hardship which may be caused to a tenant by reason of competition in the market for farms to let; and I believe that that position is very seriously affected now by the practice of going to tender in order to fix a rent and find a tenant. Obviously a penalty is imposed on the sitting tenant if he has carried out his obligations, for, by that good husbandry to which we referred a few minutes ago, he may have improved the farm as a result of being a good husbandman.
I believe it is undesirable that the rent of a farm should be increased, not only necessarily by improvements he is supposed to have made under the various Acts of Parliament already passed but by reason of the fact that he has been a good farmer and has put his wealth (if he has any) his skill and his labour into the farm and done it very well. For that reason I do not wish—nor do I think Her Majesty's Government should wish—that the good farmer should stand liable to

995
be penalised for his efforts in regard to food production. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government and that they will take note of what has been said by my noble friend about scarcity, because a rent may be fixed in relation to the scarcity of a particular type of farm in a particular area. I believe that is to be avoided, if possible, when we are trying to adjust rents throughout the agricultural industry so that they may be fair to both landlords and tenants.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This Amendment would mean, of course, that the arbitrator would have to take account of the fact that a tenant was a sitting tenant, whereas it seems to us that the arbitrator must be asked to disregard that special feature. What would the arbitrator do if by Statute he had to do what this Amendment wants him to do and pay regard to that? It could be argued that a sitting tenant had special reasons for wanting to stay in a place. Perhaps he was born there and his children had been brought up there and he knew the good and bad points of the farm, and liked it there, and therefore he would pay more to stay there than others would be willing to pay. It is quite possible that if that were put into the Bill we should almost be telling arbitrators to put the rent for a sitting tenant at a higher level than for others. On the other hand, for reasons of sentiment such as I have given, an arbitrator might be led to take the view that the sitting tenant should have a lower rent. It is impossible to say which he might do. If there were no arguments against the Amendment on other grounds (although there are, and I propose to deploy them) I should have to recommend the House to reject this Amendment because of the confusion that it would cause.
There must still be some misunderstanding about this clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, really gave point to that, for this clause has to be taken in its context. Some people seem to read it in isolation and thereby get it quite out of perspective, whereas in fact the words proposed in Clause 2 become embedded in Section 8 of the 1948 Act, which still stands on the Statute Book. There have been fears that with the instruction to disregard the fact that a tenant is in occupation the landlord would be able to
996
increase the rent in respect of improvements which the tenant had carried out. I believe that was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. There is however, a complete safeguard against this in Section 8, subsections (2) and (4) of the 1948 Act, which will not be affected by this Bill.
Section 8 (2) requires an arbitrator not to take into account any increase in value due to improvements executed at the tenant's expense, and Section 8 (4) gives a broad definition of "improvement" in relation to farming of a more beneficial nature to the holder than that which normally could be expected. Section 8 (2), indeed, goes even further, and says that an arbitrator must disregard increases in value, even where the landlord has carried them out, when they are attributable to Government grant. Clause 2 does not require the sitting tenant to pay the full open market rent without qualifications. The qualifications are in Section 8 (2) and 8 (4), which are equivalent to the sitting tenant's claim to special consideration, but on an objective ground and not a subjective ground of sentiment.
The Amendment would also require arbitrators to disregard the effect of any scarcity of similar holdings in the neighbourhood. Apart from the difficulties of defining "holdings of like character and area in the neighbourhood". I can see difficulties in the definition. One of the factors affecting market value is always bound to be scarcity or abundance. There is no rent control in agriculture, and it is a false analogy to think of this problem in those terms. We are dealing here with the voluntary hire of a profit-making asset. People do not have to take farms; they take them only because they think they can make money and a living and a reasonable profit out of them. The facts of the case are that in nearly every case the highest offers are coming in from the most efficient farmers. That is my own experience, and I am sure it is the general experience; and surely we do not want any artificial set of rules which would weight the scales in favour of inefficient farmers.
A great deal has been said about wealthy hobby farmers who offer excessive rents. These hobby farmers do exist, I agree, but in nine cases out of ten—one might almost say ninety-nine

997
cases out of a hundred—they do not seek to rent a farm; they seek to buy it: and nothing in this Amendment will stop that. I do not think that these hobby farmers come into this argument so much as some people are trying to make out. A landlord cannot reasonably expect to have a hobby farmer, and he will be out of definition there. These hobby farmers lack agricultural experience, and a willing landlord cannot reasonably be expected to let them a farm, for fear that they might let it down. We must remember that in discussing the whole of this clause and the Amendment we are dealing with arbitrations, where willing agreements have not operated; and I really do not believe we can use this hobby farmer argument to the extent to which it has been used.
Again, no one up to now has suggested that there is to be a sort of rent control for agriculture; or if they have, they are proposing a completely novel idea which would have to cover all rents and not simply arbitrated rents. All the Government are doing is trying to bring sitting tenants' rents into line with those of others. There is a gap—there is no doubt of that—and we are trying to close the gap from both sides. We feel that by easing up slightly, and with proper safeguards, the terms of the security of tenure provisions, there will be more farms on the market. The first person to like that will be the young farmer, the one who has been trained and who is longing to find a bigger supply of farms, so that he can get into the industry. We are trying to make the security of tenure provisions easier so that there will be a few more farms on the market. As soon as that position is reached, the premium will come down; and as soon as we get realistic arbitrations in the cases that go to arbitration, some of the lower sitting-tenant rents will go up, and the gap will be closed from both ends. I think that that is only right and that noble Lords want that position to come about.
There has been some misunderstanding about this matter. A very distinguished valuer who has been writing in the Press, Major Woolley, was in some doubt about these proposals, but now he has come out and said in this week's issue of the Farmers Weekly, something which is more relevant than what people said in
998
March when they did not understand the clause. He admits that:
" The normal businesslike tenant well knows that fair rents are essential and that an estate should not have two levels of rents, one free economy rents on fresh lettings and others."
Therefore I say that there is no good reason why a sitting tenant should be given a statutory right to a lower rent—and it was never intended that he should be under the 1947 Act; you have only to read the speeches concerning that legislation to appreciate that—except in so far as his own performance and the effects of Government grant entitle him to a lower rent. That position is unchanged. This Amendment would not make a clear impression on the arbitrator; it lacks precision. I do not want to be thought to treat this in any way lightheartedly, but the lines about the centipede really are relevant.
" The centipede was one day asked in fun,
Pray, say which leg comes after which …
Which raised his mind to such a pitch
He fell distracted in a ditch
Considering how to run."
I think that if this Amendment were accepted the arbitrators would be put in rather the same position.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendments as to notices to quit agricultural holdings
3.—(1) There shall be transferred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal the functions conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in this Act referred to as "the Minister") by sections twenty-four and twenty-five of the Act of 1948 (which provide for the giving or withholding by the Minister of consent to the operation of notices to quit agricultural holdings) and by section twenty-seven thereof (which relates to the grant by the Minister of certificates of had husbandry for the purposes of notices to quit).
(2) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section twenty-five of the Act of 1948 (which requires the Minister to withhold his consent to the operation of a notice to quit an agricultural holding unless he is satisfied as to certain matters)—
" (1) The Agricultural Land Tribunal shall consent under the last foregoing section to the operation of a notice to quit an agricultural holding or part of an agricultural holding if, but only if, they are satisfied as to one or more of the following matters, being a matter or matters specified by the landlord in his application for their consent, that is to say—

999
(b) that the carrying out thereof is desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes; or
Provided that, notwithstanding that they are satisfied as aforesaid, the Tribunal shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession."
5.19 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead:
"(1) Where notice to quit an agricultural holding or part of an agricultural holding is given by the landlord to the tenant thereof and, not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit, the tenant serves on the landlord a counter notice in writing stating a demand for arbitration in respect thereof, or matters arising thereon, then the same shall be referred to a single arbitrator in accordance with section seventy-seven of the Act of 1948; and in making his award the arbitrator shall consider, in addition to all information and particulars the parties may place before him, such matters as are specified by the landlord in his notice to quit in accordance with sections twenty-four and twenty-five of the Act of 1948 as amended by this section."
The noble Lord said: I look upon this as an Amendment of substance, and I hope that the Government will consider it in the same light. It is not put forward as any means of wrecking the Bill or anything of that sort, but rather to improve the procedure under the Bill. The drafting may be imperfect and carried out by an amateur; but if the Amendment is accepted then subsequent Amendments will naturally fall to be made. According to the Bill, all disputed notices to quit, whether for large or small farms, must be referred for the consideration of the Agricultural Land Tribunal. The Tribunal, within my knowledge, is already a very busy body; and the appointment of the Tribunal under this Bill is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who also is a very busy body—he is a very busy man, perhaps I ought to say—in regard to tribunal appointments and otherwise.
The Agricultural Land Tribunal appointed by the Lord Chancellor comprises a chairman of not less than seven years' standing who should be a barrister, a representative of the landowners and a representative of the tenants. On the hearing of cases, the chairman can call upon two professional assessors to assist
1000
in the consideration of the case, but the decision is entirely in the hands of the tribunal, and I am rather inclined to think that the chairman, who is a lawyer, may possibly have to act sometimes as umpire between the two other members of the tribunal. I think it is obvious that in regard to agricultural notices to quit the tribunal may in most cases have to consider matters of fact and not matters of law. What I am asking for is that all matters arising from notices to quit should be referred to a single arbitrator, appointed from a panel of experienced practical agricultural experts. The noble Lord has just paid a little tribute to the man who knows his agriculture as against a man who is a hobby farmer, and the same applies in this respect. The panel should be comprised of agricultural experts not merely of seven years' standing in their profession but possibly twice or even three times that number of years' standing before they are appointed to the panel of arbitrators.
Your Lordships will notice in the preceding clause which we have just passed that rent is a matter for a single arbitrator, and there are other matters arising in agriculture which are dealt with by professional valuers and others of experience singly, without any assistance whatsoever. It is customary to call in agricultural valuers, acting on both sides, certainly, in regard to tenant right valuations, and then, if there is a dispute between those valuers, then the matter goes to a single arbitrator. Sales and valuations of farms and estates are carried out by single professional men. The choice of tenants is a matter which comes under their purview very often, as does the terms of agreements, damages to game and stock, and such like, and general advice on all farming practices, including very often disputes between neighbours. In considering the status of these people and the matters to which they have to give their attention, why should we not put the matter of a notice to quit under their jurisdiction rather than under a legal body? I have referred to the qualities and qualifications of these agricultural valuers and arbitrators, and the reputation which a man must hold before he is appointed to the panel as an abitrator or an umpire must be very high.
There is another question which I want to raise in order to help me in my argument as to why we should pass this

1001
particular matter over to a single arbitrator, and that is the question of expense. One knows that these cases before the Agricultural Land Tribunals are very often delayed and that heavy legal expenses are incurred, because it is almost invariably necessary to employ legal assistance. The costs of the general run of agricultural valuations and arbitrations are on a much lower scale than those in regard to which one has to obtain legal advice. As this clause envisages, and as I said earlier on, not only small farms but large farms will come under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Tribunals. I think it is obvious that at any rate the small farmers would gain very materially in regard to costs if the matter was referred to a single arbitrator. I am inclined to think that at the moment there are too many tribunals. We seem to be governed to a very large extent in this country by tribunals and such like, and if we can relieve the Agricultural Land Tribunals of some of their work (which may be work that other people could do equally as well) then I think it would be an advantage.
I ask for the consideration of the Government in regard to my Amendment, and I ask noble Lords on the other Benches who are connected with farming and farming estates to back me up in my plea that agricultural matters such as we have to go through should be dealt with by practical agricultural experts rather than by a body of which the chairman is a member of the Bar. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Wise.)
5.27 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I fully realise that this is not intended by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to be a wrecking Amendment and that it is of substance. I wish I could help him about it, because he has marshalled his arguments fairly and skilfully, but I do not think I can recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I will be as brief as I can, but as this matter has been raised we must. I think, discuss for a moment what is the difference between an arbitrator and a tribunal, and their relative merits.
1002
In comparing the relative merits of giving these functions of adjudicating on notices to quit and certificates of bad husbandry to a tribunal or to an arbitrator, the first point I should like to make is that the decision in these cases is not only of vital importance to the parties and to the future of the holding, but involves a considerable element of personal judgment. In our view, it would be unwise to allow such an important decision, involving a degree of personal judgment, to rest with a single person. Where personal judgment comes in, three heads are sometimes better than one. I think it is generally accepted that the Agricultural Land Tribunals over the past ten years have done a good job on appeals in this class of case. The Franks Committee reported that
" they appear to be generally regarded as satisfactory".
As the noble Lords opposite know, they are composed of a legal chairman, a farmer and a landowner. That is a very strong combination, and their composition appeals strongly to the farming community, who have always supported the principle that farmers and landowners should be "judged by their peers".
It is perfectly true that the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, gives agricultural arbitrators very important duties, and I am not saying that the contrary is the case. I have had a complete schedule of all the functions of arbitrators on the one side and of tribunals on the other before me when considering the noble Lord's Amendment, and when one comes to consider the issues which are presented to these two kinds of judges one finds that on the whole arbitrators are asked to judge on issues of fact. Though, of course, that calls for professional judgment, and professional judgment of the highest order, it does not call for personal judgment in quite the same way, for example, as is called for when the decision is whether a landlord is being fair and reasonable.
The noble Lord referred to the question of expense. It is said sometimes that cases that go before Agricultural Land Tribunals are more expensive to the parties, but I doubt whether there is very much in that, because an arbitrator is entitled to a fee, whereas the tribunals do not impose fees or court costs. In both cases it is up to the parties to decide

1003
whether they want to be professionally represented. and that is what will control costs. A tribunal of course, can award costs, against a party who acts frivolously or vexatiously in bringing a case before them; but I do not think there is much in that. For the reasons I have given, I am confident that the Agricultural Land Tribunals are the best people we can find to determine these cases. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment, because I could not recommend your Lordships to accept it.
LORD WISE: In view of what the noble Earl has said and of the fact that I did not expect, at any rate under this Bill, to get the point I put before your Lordships—though at some time I may be able to convince your Lordships that the agricultural arbitrator is a man who can carry out the work of the Land Tribunal with great efficiency and to the satisfaction of the parties—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), in the proposed new subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I can deal with this Amendment briefly because the question it raises was discussed on Second Reading. Subsection (2) sets out the circumstances in which a landlord can give notice to his tenant and the factors which have to be taken into consideration before the Minister can give a certificate permitting eviction. One of them is that the Agricultural Land Tribunal shall be satisfied
" that the carrying out thereof is desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes;"
In the first place, I want to use the argument which the noble Lord used against the Amendment which I last moved—namely, that this would be a very difficult thing to operate. The criterion is so vague and difficult to decide upon, that the Tribunal would have as much difficulty in determining what is "desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate" as it would have in deciding what is the scarcity value to be attached to land. If that was a good reason for rejecting a positive Amendment, I should have thought it applied equally here, be-
1004
cause the wording of this condition is even vaguer and more difficult to ascertain.
I would go further. Apart altogether from the difficulty of determining what is "desirable in the interests of sound management"—and that may mean all sorts of things—I would say that it is unfair to the tenant and calculated to deprive him of a certain amount of security. I have never said that we stand for giving tenants complete security; nor, incidentally, have I said that we stand for the crystallisation of the rent that they are paying at present. We on this side of the Committee have always recognised that there are circumstances in which a landlord is entitled to a greater rent, and circumstances in which he is entitled to possession. Therefore, we are not in disagreement about the necessity for having a provision which would give a landlord an opportunity of getting possession in certain circumstances. What we do say is that we do not think that the landlord ought to get possession merely because it
is
" desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate of which the land to which the notice relates forms part or which that land constitutes; …"
We feel that we have to hold a balance between landlord and tenant. I take it that we are still concerned with the interests of good farming and not with the pure landlord-tenant relationship. We feel that to import this paragraph into the Bill as a ground for getting possession is unfair to the tenant. He might be a perfectly good tenant, farming the land extremely well, and yet, through no fault of his own, merely because the landlord thinks it desirable in the interests of sound management of the estate "he might be evicted. I do not even suggest that there may not be circumstances in which it would be right, for the improvement of an estate as a whole, that a tenant should be asked to go; but in my view the provision ought to be far more specific than this paragraph (b), which is so vague that almost any landlord can make out a case that eviction would be "desirable in the interests of sound management".
It is clearly understood that one can always make a case for a larger holding by arguing that combining land which constitutes the tenancy with a bigger area creates a more efficient unit. A man may be farming 50 acres which forms part of a holding of, say, 500 acres. It

1005
is the easiest thing in the world to make the case that "in the interests of sound management" the 50 acres should be incorporated in the 500. It almost goes without saying. Yet I am sure that we should not wish to give a landlord possession and evict a satisfactory tenant on that ground alone. I hope that this is not the intention of these words in subsection (2) (b). If the Government really attach importance to some provision which would enable a landlord to get possession in circumstances of this kind, I submit that they ought to define it more clearly and definitely, first of all, so that the Agricultural Land Tribunal which would decide this type of case would understand the exact test they have to apply and not use this vague test; and, secondly, so as to limit the opportunities of a landlord to get possession to those where it is definitely desirable in the public interest. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to give a promise that he will look into the wording of this paragraph with a view to making it more clear and definite and to limiting its application. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45. leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WISE: I hope the noble Earl will take note of what my noble friend has said and will reconsider this subsection. It seems to me to be a re-writing of Section 25 (1) of the 1948 Act, and possibly makes it even more difficult than that provision. In the 1948 Act the expression "good estate management" is used, and I think it is a pity to introduce into this Bill the words "sound management" rather than the words to which we have been accustomed since 1947. As my noble friend has said, it will be difficult to define what is desirable under this paragraph. and I therefore hope that the Government will at any rate reconsider the wording, even if they cannot dispense with paragraph (b) altogether.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Perhaps I might reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, because he has raised a point that I think can dispose of straight away. He has asked why we do not use the well-known phrase "good estate management", and why we have imported the phrase "sound management". The
1006
answer is because (though I think what we are now defining as "sound estate management" is what "good estate management" was intended to be in the 1947 Act) the courts, as so often happens in these cases, have limited the provision and made it mean, by judgment, something which we did not think it meant. "Good estate management has come to be limited to the provision of conditions which will enable the occupier to maintain production; and, secondly, it has come to be limited by court decisions to the land subject to the notice and not to the estate as a whole, which was never intended. That is why we use these other words.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asks: "Why do you import this into the Bill?" But his Amendment would take the whole of the estate management, good, sound or whatever adjective you put in front of it, out of the 1947 Act altogether. We are repealing nothing. We are including paragraph (b) to bring the position up to date and within the law, so that it will work as it was always intended to work. The Amendment, as drafted and as put down, would make it impossible for a landlord to gain possession of a holding on estate management grounds. I cannot understand how that could be held to be desirable, especially by those who say they believe that the 1947 Act should not be touched at all. A good estate is not merely a collection of holdings; it must be looked at as a whole, and there are many cases where notices to quit for the purpose of reorganisation of farm boundaries and the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings is in the general interest of agriculture, and in the long-term interests of the tenants.
Statements have often been made by leading spokesmen on both sides about the virtues of consolidation of holdings of this nature. But this Amendment would relegate the whole of those amalgamations to the class of pious aspirations. It would be far more restrictive than the provisions existing under the 1948 Act, which allow a tenancy to be terminated if this is in the interests of good estate management of the holding concerned. Therefore, it would be an even greater departure from the intentions, as we understand them, of the 1947 and 1948 Acts. It was a decision of the courts which confined the meaning of the phrase "good estate management"

1007
to the management of the land covered by notice to quit. It had been understood, when the 1947 and 1948 Acts were before Parliament, that the whole estate would be taken into consideration.
There is another important point. This Amendment would run counter to the agreed intentions of both sides of the industry. Clause 3 represents an agreement in terms between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, and I could recommend your Lordships to accept an Amendment only if there were the most compelling reasons. I do not see them here.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised this matter on Second Reading, when he said that any landlord could seek eviction on vague grounds of sound management. I think the noble Lord may have overlooked two important points. The first is the importance of the proviso which requires the Tribunal to withhold consent
" if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession."
That proviso (perhaps I did not stress it enough in my Second Reading speech) is overriding of the whole matter. It requires the Tribunal to do this, and in this respect is, from the tenant's point of view, an advance on the discretion given to the Tribunal under the present law, because the Tribunal is not obliged to use that discretion. It is quite clear to me, and I hope that it will be clear to your Lordships also, that the Tribunal must inevitably reject any vague proposals and any schemes which they consider to be a mere cover for some other purpose, since no reasonable landlord would seek to evict a tenant on these grounds unless he had a sound, genuine and workable scheme ready to put into operation.
The other safeguard against abuse which may have been overlooked is that to be found in paragraph 13 of the First Schedule, the penal clause. There the landlord is subject to a penalty of up to two years' rent, in addition to the rent he must pay as compensation for disturbance. I think there would be few landlords, however unscrupulous, who would be prepared to put up a false argument and then not carry out what they have alleged they would carry out and pay compensation of two years' rent to the tenant and another two years' rent as a fine. That is a fairly heavy fine. Incidentally,
1008
on other points in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, it is a good reason why a tenant (if there be any) who fears an unscrupulous landlord is much safer with a realistic rent than with some of these nominal rents that existed in the past: he knows that if his landlord does play any tricks of that sort on him the fine will be really substantial. I feel therefore that paragraph (b) is a useful and necessary part of the clause, and I would urge your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry to say that the noble Earl did not do himself justice on this Amendment. He spent most of the time criticising the terms of the Amendment. I hope I am not saying anything that is incorrect, but certainly since I have been in this House it has been traditional not to be too particular about the exact words of an Amendment. We have no expert draftsmen on this side of the House. We have to do it in our leisure time on a Sunday afternoon, when we should be much more happily engaged in other activities, and we do our best. It is always open to criticism. Anybody can stand up and criticise the wording of an Amendment; and possibly it is capable of being criticised. But I suggest to the noble Earl that it is not right to spend the greater part of his time in replying by criticising the wording, or the way in which this Amendment has been prepared.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I should be very sorry indeed if I had shown any discourtesy to the noble Lord, and certainly none was intended. I do not think anyone reading Hansard would feel that I was doing that in this case. This is not a question of the words of the Amendment, which simply says "leave out paragraph (b)." There is no wording there that I am arguing about. I am arguing about what would happen if we deleted the paragraph.
LORD SILKIN: But the noble Earl did not take account of what I asked him to do towards the end of my speech. In form, of course, I regard this paragraph as an objectionable paragraph. Nevertheless I think that something ought to be put in its place. I have not drafted what should be put in its place, but I indicated the sort of thing which I think would be acceptable. I expressed the hope that the

1009
Government would be prepared to look at this paragraph again and see whether something could be put in its place which would be acceptable.
I gave my reasons why I thought this particular paragraph, as it stood, was not satisfactory. I had hoped that the noble Earl would have directed himself to that point. I think it is vague and goes too far, because it enables any landlord to come along with a legitimate scheme, if you like, on the ground of sound management of the estate, which would no doubt improve the profitability of the land from his point of view, but not from an agricultural point of view.
As this clause stands, for instance, a landlord is under no obligation to improve the land from the agricultural point of view. He can come along with a scheme in the interests of sound management. He could even produce a scheme for bringing industry on to the land, and certainly from his own point of view of sound management it might be highly desirable, and it might even be desirable in the public interest. But the criterion ought to be the public interest, and not the interest of the individual landlord himself. In other words, what we are objecting to is that the landlord should be able to get an eviction order against a tenant merely because he can make a more profitable use of the land and not necessarily because the alternative use of the land would be in the public interest.
I hoped the noble Earl would be willing to look at that point again. He has made an alteration from the terms of the 1948 Act. Is he quite sure that the alteration he is proposing to make really meets the case? Is he sure it does not go too far? If he would be prepared to give an assurance that he would look at it again with his friends, I would be quite prepared to drop the Amendment. But I think it is worthy of being looked at again in the light of what I have said.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said. I am an owner of agricultural land and have every reason to try to protect my own interests. At the same time, it seems to me that these words are a little vague, and it may be that when they are interpreted by tribunals they could be given a meaning which may not be entirely acceptable to the owner as well as the tenant. These questions of
1010
drafting are always difficult, but I should have thought it was worth looking into again.
LORD HASTINGS: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and also to the noble Earl. I must say that I feel perhaps the noble Lord opposite was a little unfair. I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, replied fully to the Amendment. He explained in great detail the precise meaning of the words, "sound management of the estate ",and explained why it has been necessary to depart from the old expression," good estate management "because in the courts that expression had not really complied with the original intention of the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, complained particularly, I think, that a landlord might put up some scheme not connected with agricultural improvement. I would direct his attention to paragraph (e) where that possibility is referred to:
" … the land's being used for a use, other than for agriculture. …"
That, presumably, would apply to the establishment of industry, a building estate, or something like that. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would have preferred to follow that paragraph rather than paragraph (b), which, it seems to me, meets the general case for the improvement of the agricultural aspect of land management much better than any other words that could be found. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Gage that these terms are too vague. I feel that noble Lords opposite do not seem to have enough confidence in the Land Tribunal.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Landlords.
LORD HASTINGS: The Land Tribunal, if you please. I am not going to argue as to the excellence of landlords, but the Land Tribunal is to be charged with these matters. I am quite sure, for instance, that they would not agree to a 50-acre farm being tacked on to a 500-acre farm. That is no particular improvement. The man with 500 acres does not need it, and no reasonable landlord would insist on possession in that case. But if it were a question of amalgamating two or three small holdings which were uneconomic, whose tenants were clearly not able to pay their way,

1011
and whose buildings were probably beginning to fall down, then that is possibly a legitimate case for improvement of the estate and the sound management of the estate. I can think of other quite logical matters which could be dealt with under this clause.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We always felt that this kind of policy was based upon the survival of the fittest and the weakest to the wall. We are confirmed in it.
LORD HASTINGS: I am sure that if the noble Viscount was a landlord of an estate—perhaps he is; I am not sure—where these problems arose, he would not misunderstand me. But it is quite clear in some cases—I am not saying that tenants should be evicted, but when tenants come to the end of their life—that there should be an opportunity for making amalgamations which are in the interest of future tenants and the management of the estate itself. I would ask noble Lords opposite to believe that this matter can be left safely in the hands of the Agricultural Land Tribunals.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has just given the best argument for looking at this clause again.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think it would be fair for me to say that we would consider it again, knowing, as I do, what answer I should have to come back with. I want to give just these three reasons for this. First of all, I am absolutely sure that Lord Silkin's fears on the one point are unfounded. I am sure that the tribunal must reject these vague proposals. That is the first point. Secondly, we heard a good deal earlier this afternoon about listening to the National Farmers' Union. This whole subsection has had a tremendous amount of work and thought put into it and the National Farmers' Union and the Landowners' Association have been consulted. It would have to go back again if it were radically changed. Thirdly, I think we are overlooking that the whole of this is topped and tailed with this proviso; everything that happens under Clause 3—paragraph (b) is no exception—is subject to the proviso, which I have underlined in red in my copy because people keep forgetting it:
1012
" Provided that, notwithstanding that they are satisfied as aforesaid, the Tribunal shall withhold consent to the operation of the notice to quit if in all the circumstances it appears to them that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession."
That is a tremendous safeguard and must not be overlooked. The fourth point is, do not let us forget the very substantial penalty for abuse which is contained in the Schedule. Therefore I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We thought we might have saved the House the trouble of dividing again. You have been given the opportunity for thinking it over before Report stage. But the unrelenting attitude on the basis of the words quoted leaves me quite cold. The proviso speaks of "a fair and reasonable landlord". This is to be the basis of interpretation of some tribunal. On what grounds, what experience? We do not know who they will be or what experience they will have of this kind of thing. Nobody in any statutory or judicial position has ever given a reasonable interpretation of the word "reasonable". I can refer you to all kinds of stories about that, but I will not bother—read some of the Committee's Report on Trusts and Combines in 1919–20 and you will see what I mean. The noble Earl must give us the chance of thinking again before the Report stage, otherwise we shall divide now or on Report.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), in the proposed new subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert:
" (f) that notwithstanding the provisions of the proviso to this subsection, the land referred to was the subject of a lease to a company or corporation entered into before the Act of 1948, and the term shall have expired within a month before the notice to quit shall have been served by the landlord, or was the subject of a year to year tenancy with a company or corporation entered into before the said Act:"
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to remove a serious injustice that has arisen as a result of the passing of the 1948 Act. I do not suppose the Government of the day, the Labour Party, wished to create a special class of privileged tenants, and possibly the matter was overlooked by them at

1013
the time. But the result of the passing of the Act is that when farms are let to companies those companies are placed in a privileged position relative to all other tenants, for a company never dies.
A landowner who let a farm to a company before the passing of the 1948 Act, say for a period of fourteen years, did so in the firm belief that at the expiration of that time he would be able to regain possession, if he so desired, subject to the payment of compensation for improvements and so on. A landlord who did this in perfectly good faith now finds himself in a hopeless position. For never can he regain possession of the land, because as I have said, a company never dies. He may want the land to farm himself, or for a member of his family who has now grown older and suitable to farm land; he may want to amalgamate it with another part of the property or to let it, perhaps, to another tenant. But as I have said, he can never sere notice to quit as the company can ask the Minister to declare the notice null and void and the company can continue for ever on a year-to-year basis, subject to the rules of good husbandry. This class of privileged tenant can go on for ever unless the company is wound up, which of course is very unlikely to happen with a large company managing an agricultural property. If a landowner lets his property to a company subsequent to the passage of the 1948 Act, he does so with his eyes open; he knows the position, and probably in the result very few landlords, if they are wise, will ever in future let their land to a company.
This question of the creation of privileged tenants has occurred from time to time in our history. In the reign of Edward I the monasteries enjoyed great privileges as tenants by reason of their undying status. It was very injurious to the King and the landlords of that period. In order to remove the dead hand the famous Statute of Mortmain was passed to put I he matter right. If you substitute the word "company" for "monastery" in the Statute of Mortmain you will see that my Amendment is very much the same and seeks to remove an injustice which to-day corresponds to the experience in 1300. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: This Amendment raises very difficult issues—there is no doubt about that. In its favour, I agree that a landlord who has let to an individual can count on being able to recover possession, when his tenant dies, under Section 24 (2) (g) of the 1948 Act, and Clause 6 has been introduced into this Bill to make the same hold good for Scotland. I agree also that a landlord who has let to a corporate body cannot take advantage of this provision because the corporation is never going to die. This is a serious matter for the landlord who may well be deprived of any opportunity whatever of getting possession of his own property. One is bound to feel certain sympathy for the view that this is rather harsh. On the other hand, it is important not to exaggerate the landlord's disability. Remember that he will still be able to recover possession if he can make out a case on any of the other grounds set out in Clause 3 of this Bill or in Section 24 of the 1948 Act. For example, he can turn his tenant out if he can show that it is in the interests of efficient farming or sound management, or that greater hardship will be caused, subject all the time to the proviso. He can also turn his tenant out under Section 24 on grounds of breach of covenant or on the ground that the land is wanted for a non-agricultural use. In short, the landlord's power to gain possession in the interests of the holding is the same whether the farm is let to an individual or a corporate body. It cannot therefore really be said that he is more likely than others to lose on his investment so long as the farm remains let.
Again, from the agricultural standpoint there is good reason for enabling a landlord to regain possession on the death of a tenant. The tenant's successor may be unacceptable; he may not be a farmer at all. So long as the tenant himself is protected from eviction the agricultural purposes of the security of tenure—to give him confidence to plan ahead and to farm well—are, we consider, sufficiently guaranteed. The advantage to agriculture therefore lies in the landlord's freedom to select the next occupier, when the occupier is an individual. But the advantage to agriculture is not so clear with a corporate tenant as I have tried to show. For this reason this Amendment cannot be regarded for corporate bodies as the exact equivalent of

1015
the existing provisions about the death of individuals. I do not want to criticise the noble Viscount on drafting, but it is a fact that, as the Amendment is drafted, all tenants under tenancies created before 1948 would have to farm in continual uncertainty, knowing that they might receive an uncontestable notice to quit at any time. Surely that is not desirable.
I feel that I must also say something else in this connection—I hope my noble friend will not think that I am merely criticising the drafting of the Amendment. Another reason why we could not accept it as it stands is that there is another kind of body which would also be affected by this Amendment. My noble friend was probably thinking of joint stock companies, but there are, for instance, 27,000 acres of agricultural land let to county councils in their capacity as smallholding authorities. I do not think that my noble friend would wish to deprive them, and in turn their sub-tenants, the smallholders, of all security of tenure. Yet this Amendment would tend to produce that effect. The argument that landlords never will let to a company is not really covered by this Amendment, because it refers only to pre-1948 tenants. I think your Lordships will recognise, in view of what I have said, that this matter needs careful thought. It may be that we can find a formula which would meet the specific point that has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, without damage to the agricultural interests.
There is one other and most important point that I must raise—namely, that the changes which we propose in this Bill in regard to security of tenure were the result of an agreement between the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union, and I think the noble Viscount will agree that any further change must proceed on the basis of thorough consultation with the two sides of the industry. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment now. I will gladly undertake that my Department will give this matter careful further study, with a view perhaps to including a suitable Amendment in an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill or otherwise at some future date, if an acceptable solution can be found to the difficulties I have tried to outline.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: In view of the statement made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would only say that it is quite a piece of progress to get the noble Earl promising at least one of his own side that there will be consultation before Report. We are most grateful that at least the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association are promised consultation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), to add to the proviso:
" or that greater hardship would be caused by consenting to operation of the notice to quit than by withholding such consent."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin I beg to move this Amendment. Now we come to the rather famous proviso which the noble Earl mentioned in a previous speech that he had underlined in red ink. The object of this Amendment is to enable the tenant to receive greater consideration in regard to notice to quit. The Committee will see in the proviso that the Tribunal are given definite instructions as to what they may consider, or what they may do if they consider that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. We wish by this Amendment to give the Tribunal a further instruction by inserting at the end of the proviso the words:
" or that greater hardship would be caused by consenting to operation of the notice to quit than by withholding such consent."
The Committee will notice that earlier in subsection (2) there is a provision given to the landlord whereby he may insert in his notice to quit the fact
" that greater hardship would be caused by withholding than by giving consent to the operation of the notice."
If you grant to the landlord the right to give as a reason that withholding would create greater hardship than by giving consent, then I think that the same should apply to the tenant, and that these words should be inserted at the end of the proviso.
If the Committee will refer to Section 25 of the 1948 Act, it will be noticed that this particular subsection differs not only in regard to the wording itself but

1017
through the inclusion of other subsections which are not in the 1948 Act, and the hardship subsection is one of those which has been included. In fairness, it would be difficult for the Tribunal at any time to decide in their minds what a fair and reasonable landlord would do, but it is obvious from those words that they will have ruled out the landlord who has sent in the notice to quit, because, obviously, if he is a fair and reasonable landlord he would not have sent the tenant the notice to quit. The Government are helping to protect the landlord by this clause; I hope that they will also protect the tenant. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hastings that there are some very good landlords in Norfolk and elsewhere, and hope that we may think them all fair and reasonable to their tenants so far as notices to quit are concerned. I hope that the Government will help us in this matter, and that at long last they will accept one of our Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18. after (" possession ") insert the said words.—(Lord Wise.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Wise, after the careful way in which he has put forward this Amendment, but I really could not accept it. Let us see what he is asking us to do. He is asking us to make hardship an overriding factor in the decision of all notices to quit. After all, we heard earlier this afternoon from the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that no matter how badly a tenant was farming, no matter—
LORD WISE: May I just interrupt the noble Earl? You say that you are making hardship the overriding factor.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not doing so, but your Amendment would.
LORD WISE: But in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) (1) you are already making hardship an overriding factor on behalf of the landlord if he serves his notice to quit.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, that is not quite an accurate interpretation of the Bill. Hardship is one of the grounds for giving a notice to quit and hardship can be pleaded. If the landlord pleads hardship the tenant can plead hardship back again. This Amendment, however,
1018
would require the Tribunal to refuse consent wherever greater hardship would be caused by giving than by refusing consent; and that means that where notice was given in the interests of good husbandry or of sound estate management, or whatever the ground might be, and whatever the Tribunal thought, if the tenant chose to put in the word "hardship" and could prove that he was going to suffer hardship—as everybody must—then the whole thing would be overridden.
This Amendment would alter the whole meaning and purpose of the security of tenure provisions, for the purpose of those provisions was not, and is not, to give tenants a life interest in the farms they occupy. These provisions were introduced because it is impossible for a tenant farmer to plan ahead and farm properly without reasonable confidence in his security, if he does his business properly. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I really think that that is, and must be, what security of tenure was intended for. If it is said that security of tenure is simply to give the tenant the freehold without his having to pay for it, surely that was not intended nor could it be done. The primary purpose of all security of tenure provisions is efficiency in agriculture, and that is why Her Majesty's Government could not accept an Amendment which would be an overriding blanket and would say that, however inefficient the farming may be, where there is hardship the tenant does not have to go. That could not be. Neither farmers nor landowners want the provision extended in that way.
The legitimate claims of tenants are already adequately covered by the existing proviso which requires the Tribunal to refuse consent if, in all the circumstances, a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on turning out the tenant. Agricultural landlords are not slow to acknowledge their responsibilities as well as their rights, and many of them—I believe most of them—have established a sound tradition of decent behaviour. I am sure that a tribunal (and here it is a tribunal and not a single arbitrator) including among its members (as it must) a farmer and a landowner, will have no difficulty in deciding, in cases like this, what a fair and reasonable landlord would do in the circumstances of any case. He would

1019
be anxious to avoid acting unnecessarily harshly, but he would recognise that in some circumstances his responsibilities to the land in question, and to the estate—perhaps even to his family—might require him to end the tenancy, even at the cost of some hardship to the tenant. We cannot work this world without a little pain and difficulty in some cases.
In short, we believe that our proviso is a sufficient safeguard. It has the agreement of both the landlords' and the farmers' sides. The Amendment, on the other hand, would make the hardship to a tenant the overriding consideration and turn the new security of tenure provision from an essential base of efficiency into a cover for bad farming. I am afraid that that would be the effect and that in this way it would defeat the object of the subsection; for that object is to bring to an end a situation in which the security intended for the good tenant farmer has—contrary to the original intention—been given to the bad farmer; and I am afraid I must strongly recommend its rejection.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am bound to say that no one on this side of the House would be convinced by such an argument. Paragraph (d) which was quoted by my noble friend in the interruption just now gives as one of the grounds:
" that greater hardship would he caused by withholding than by giving consent to the operation of the notice ",
and there is therefore, as the clause now stands, a distinct bias in favour of the landlord who is giving notice. The noble Earl merely says, "But the tenant can plead hardship in return." That is not the point we are arguing. If it is left as it is, the alternative is given to the Tribunal to decide that there would be hardship against the landlord; but there is no provision in this proviso to the same extent on behalf of the tenant. That is our case.
When we listen to these expositions of what is fair and reasonable to be submitted to the Tribunal we come back again to the interpretation of "reasonable" as given to the Standing Committee on Trusts. They quoted the case of the publican and the painters. They quoted the painters as saying to the publican, when questioned, that the beer
1020
supplied to them would not have been theirs at all if it had been any better; and that if it had been any worse they could not have drunk it. If that is the kind of basis on which they want "reasonable" interpreted in relation to the tenant, who at present has reasonable terms of security, then I do not think Her Majesty's Government have very much to stand on. Let them take out paragraph (d) if they like and leave the tenant fair and square; or else give us the addition to the proviso which will put the tenant in an equitable position in relation to the landlord whom Her Majesty's Government are protecting by this clause.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
6.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA THE MARQUESS OF AILSA moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
Creation of contractual leases by agreement
" .—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other enactment it shall be competent for the landlord and the tenant of any agricultural holding to which this section applies by agreement to enter into a lease of the holding for such period not being less than fourteen years and with such break or breaks in the said lease as may be mutually agreed upon between the landlord and tenant.
(2) The provisions of section five of the Act of 1949 (which relates to the respective liabilities of landlord and tenant for fixed equipment and insurance premiums) shall apply to any lease entered into under the provisions of this section.
(3) The provisions of sections twenty-five and twenty-six of the Act of 1949 (which relate to restrictions on notices to quit) shall not apply to any lease entered into under the provisions of this section.
(4) The provisions of this section shall apply to any agricultural holding in respect of which a contract of tenancy has been entered into before or after the commencement of this Act and shall apply to Scotland only."
The noble Marquess said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. My object is to endeavour to make it possible for landlord and tenant in Scotland to enter into a lease for a period—the suggested minimum period is fourteen years—and that at the conclusion of this period it shall be possible for either the landlord or the tenant to intimate to each other his intention of terminating the lease, if one or other desires to do so. At

1021
the present moment there is nothing debarring both tenant and landlord in Scotland from entering into a lease of such a nature, but at the termination of the period only the tenant can, with success, intimate his intention to terminate. If the landlord intimates his intention to terminate the lease, then under existing legislation the tenant has security of tenure.
Prior to the advent of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, under which this legislation is brought up, it was customary for tenants to hold their land from a landlord on leases of this nature for fourteen, nineteen or twenty-five years, and in some parts even longer—the duration of the lease varying from district to district; but the effect was the same. This method of tenure was beneficial to the whole country, and I believe that it can truthfully be said that the standard of farming in Scotland was made by it. Most of the farms in Scotland have been developed to the state we see to-day by the combined effort of landlord and tenant during the past 200 years or so and not, as we so often hear suggested, by the landlord versus the tenant. I know from my own experience that, even now, where tenants are offered leases of this nature under existing legislation they are pleased to accept them, because they feel that the estates offering those leases want to co-operate with them, and give them the feeling of being wanted, by affording them a period of security, no matter what legislation requires.
I believe that if this Amendment could be accepted, both sides of this industry would be put on their mettle, as each would have to prove to the other, at the time when the lease came up for renewal, that he was worth having. At the present moment, as we know, a landlord has a remedy against a bad tenant, and a good tenant has safeguards against the bad landlord; but an average landlord has no remedy against what I would call the mediocre type of tenant (I think many of your Lordships will know what I mean), yet that type of person can often do far more harm than a bad tenant. In my Amendment I have mentioned the possibility of having breaks in the duration of the lease. I put this in because, in my own experience, I have found that tenants have repeatedly asked for such a provision when entering into a lease of any considerable duration, the reason being
1022
that they want a safeguard against some unforeseen happening. They may have a failure; they may not be so successful as they hoped to be and they may want to quit. This could be written in in order to give the tenant a "let out". Then he does not feel that he is held should the terms of trade go against him or should anything unforeseen happen.
It is not the intention of this Amendment to affect the security of tenure given to tenants having a tenure on a year-to-year term. The intention is that it should be purely a voluntary arrangement between the landlord and tenant. If each felt he had sufficient confidence in the other, they could enter into a lease of this nature and it would he binding. If the tenant felt that his landlord was not the type of person he would like to have as a landlord, that he could not trust him and that he would not get justice, then he could still remain on his present tenure till the end of his days. But in many cases I feel that new tenants will be required to enter into a lease of this nature; and I should like to repeat that I think it would be beneficial, as both sides would then have to live up to the required standards, one to another. The termination of a lease, with all the statutory liabilities regarding compensation already legislated for, would, of course, be binding.
I should like to add that the termination of a lease is a good time to adjust compensation for the various improvements that are carried out by a tenant during his tenure. Then both sides can start afresh, the landlord knowing what he owes and the tenant knowing his own position. I would press that this new clause be accepted, and that it should be possible for the Scottish landlord and tenant system to continue to flourish as it has done in the past.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Ailsa.)
LORD FORBES: I should like to support this Amendment. It is obviously designed to strengthen the landlord and tenant system. It is well known that the landlord and tenant system is the cornerstone of farming in Scotland. It is also known that this system is now failing, and it is quite easy to see why. If a tenanted farm becomes vacant—though tenanted farms very rarely become vacant in Scotland—the landowner either takes over the

1023
farm himself or sells it; and this is bringing about, quite rapidly, an end to the landlord and tenant system. Therefore, I submit that anything that can be done to strengthen the system should he encouraged.
LORD SILKIN: I hesitate to intervene in what has become a Scottish debate, but while I make no comment about the general principle of this clause, which is probably quite sound, I would draw attention to one point, and that is that it refers to a fourteen-year lease "with such break or breaks … as may be mutually agreed upon. …" It is possible to have such frequent breaks with both parties having the option to terminate, but the lease becomes virtually a lease for a short period.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: May I intervene? That is a point which I should have stressed. The breaks can operate only on the side of the tenant. If breaks are mutual, the duration of the lease is the period between the breaks, not a fourteen-years period or any longer period.
LORD SILKIN: That is the point I was making. There is nothing in this Amendment which says there is an option only on the part of the tenant. If there were, my observations would have no further effect.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: The point is this. If a lease is entered into for fourteen years (let us say, for the sake of argument), there might be mutual breaks operating both for the landlord and for the tenant every third year. That would be a lease for three years, with an option for it to run for fourteen years; but the duration of the lease is only three years, not fourteen.
LORD SILKIN: I speak with some diffidence because the position may be different in Scotland, but it is possible to have a fourteen-year lease determinable by either party at the end of every three years. In practice it would be a three-year lease subject to renewal, but in form it would be a fourteen-year lease, subject to determination every three years. Therefore I think that if the noble Marquess wishes to provide for the tenant only having the option to determine, he ought to say so in his Amendment.
6.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): I should like to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, on the manner in which he placed his new clause before the Committee. I must say that I agree with much that he said about the benefits that have been derived by both tenants and owners of land from the traditional long-lease system which has existed in Scotland for so many years, indeed up to the year 1948. But the noble Marquess is really advocating a return to the system of contractual leases, so far as Scotland is concerned, by legalising contracting out of the security of tenure provisions of the 1949 Act. I do not know whether the noble Marquess really appreciates that while a new tenant might conceivably agree to that course, for the sake of getting the holding, it seems hardly likely that a sitting tenant would deliberately sacrifice security of tenure for his lifetime for the limited security which a new lease would give him.
That apart, I confess to having some sympathy with the view that a return to the system of contractual leases is desirable, but I feel there are very considerable objections to the proposals in the clause which the noble Marquess has moved. Surely, if the principle of security of tenure as modified by this Bill is accepted it must apply to all tenancies. Again in a matter of this kind it must be difficult to argue that a different principle should apply to Scotland from the principle applied in England. That is one of the reasons why this Bill modifies the conditions inserted in the Act of 1948.
As your Lordships know, the question of security of tenure is one of the most controversial questions arising from the landlord and tenant relationship, and the lengthy debates in another place during the passage of this Bill are evidence of the high feelings which can be aroused. I know that in advocating what is, in effect, a return to the pre-1948 position regarding tenancies of agricultural holdings the noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, is reflecting the very strongly held views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation. The Government, however, are of the opinion that that would be going too far. We appreciate that there is a need for greater flexibility than exists at the

1025
moment in the relations existing between landlord and tenant, but our appreciation of that need is shown in the Bill which we are now discussing, various clauses of which are particularly designed to ease that position. While I am grateful to the noble Marquess for ventilating this question, I hope that he will not press his Amendment, for it is one which I could not recommend your Lordships to accept.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on the 10th and 17th June last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before seven o'clock.