Sitting of 5 December 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
PETITION

  Stansted Airport
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a Petition from the Urban District Council of Bishop's Stortford in the County of Hertford.
  The Petition recites the intention of the Government to site the third London airport at Stansted and to confer planning permission therefor by special development order.
  It further recites the many and grave problems that will flow therefrom in the context of regional planning and the public interest generally.
  It concludes:
  "Your Petitioner prays that Her Majesty's Government may be called upon to examine its national policy for airports and to cause a further public inquiry to be held into the suitability of Stansted and other alternative sites for the Third London Airport and to refrain from making any Special Development Order for the development of the airport at Stansted until a final decision can be taken in the light of the findings of such inquiry.
  And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest position in Rhodesia.
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I have as yet nothing to add to the statement which I made on 14th November.
    Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the cost of the present sanctions policy in the context of our present economic situation, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Rhodesia as reflected in the pernicious racialist legislation introduced there now, there is urgent need to make the sanctions policy more effective? And is he aware that he will have all possible support in this House for anything he does in that respect?
    Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government are with great urgency studying all aspects of the problem in the light of the report I brought back from Salisbury.
    Mr. Doughty: In view of the vast cost of sanctions—whether or not the figures given to me by the Prime Minister last week are right, and whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this policy—is it not time, in view of our financial situation, that we stopped imposing on ourselves the vast cost of these sanctions?
    Mr. Thomson: We are aware of the sacrifices that the British economy is making as a result of sanctions. I think that, simply on the economic front, one has to bear in mind that if we were to depart from the principles laid down there would be a very considerable economic cost on the other side.
    Mr. Paget: Is the Minister aware that reinforcing failure is generally bad generalship, and that if our economic policy is to succeed it involves an increase of at least £200 million in our South African trade, and that we shall certainly not get it while we persist in this foolishness?
    Mr. Thomson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that I recognise the source, in today's Daily Telegraph, of his phrase "reinforcing failure"? Is he further aware that to depart from principles is very often bad politics?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Secretary of State not aware that, in their 25th month, sanctions are now totally abortive, most largely because none of our foreign competitors observe them? Why is he continuing to give trade to the Japanese, to the French, to the Italians, and the remainder, as the expense of Britain?
    Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman is either ignorant of or is ignoring the operations of the sanctions resolution. There are further Questions on the Order Paper which I do not want to anticipate, but I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that sanctions are not having an effect in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Faulds: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are talking of economic considerations, military intervention would be a damned sight cheaper than the prolongation of sanctions?
    Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I do not agree.
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of Stae for Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for imposing further restrictions on individual Southern Rhodesians to bring home to them the illegal nature of the Smith régime.
    Mr. George Thomson: Means of making the sanctions policy more effective are constantly under review. The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee set up a Working Party on 28th September for this purpose. I cannot forecast at this stage what further measures Her Majesty's Government may take.
    Dr. Gray: Is it not strange that the individual citizens of an illegal régime are able to visit this country without let or hindrance? Will not my right hon. Friend consider stopping such travel unless it is made on compassionate grounds?
    Mr. Thomson: Travel is one of the matters that is under study by the Working Party of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. I do not want to prejudge the decisions that that body
    1108
    may come to on where the balance of advantage lies, nor when the decision is taken could I undertake in advance to tell the House about it, because the effectiveness of sanctions lies in their surprise value.
    Mr. Braine: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House when he came back from Salisbury that he was not seeking to slam the door but was interested in making progress and that both sides had agreed to reflect on the situation before taking further steps? Would he not agree that at a time when, if I may quote the Daily Telegraph— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not quote at Question Time.
    Mr. Braine: Would not the Secretary of State agree that at a time when the deadlock is bleeding both countries suggestions such as that made in the Question are most unhelpful and seem calculated to destroy the possibility of a settlement?
    Mr. Thomson: No, I really cannot accept that the position is as the hon. Member has stated it. We are at present considering my report as a result of my discussions in Salisbury and in other African capitals. Sanctions are already in operation as a result of U.N. resolutions and the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee had been considering this matter for some months before I ever set off to Africa. One cannot expect these considerations to be held up indefinitely. We have got to keep the two things in step, but I will make a statement to the House on these matters as soon as I can.
    Mr. David Steel: Further to the original question, cannot we at least withdraw recognising the validity of Rhodesian passports.
    Mr. Thomson: I have answered that question. This is being considered by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, and I do not want to prejudge the Committee's decision.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of the increasing effect of sanctions in producing economic and political changes within Rhodesia.
    Mr. George Thomson: While sanctions have not yet led to a situation in which there is a return to constitutional rule, I am satisfied that they are having a significant effect on Rhodesia.
    Mr.Biffen: That Answer reflects more hope than realism. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that the political strength of Mr. Ian Smith within Rhodesia has been diminished since the onset of sanctions?
    Mr. Thomson: I should not like to make an estimate on that question, and I have been doing my best directly with Mr. Ian Smith in recent weeks to see whether we can come to an honourable and just settlement. The hon. Gentleman asks about the effect of sanctions. There is no doubt about the effect they are having on the Rhodesian economy. I take only one figure at random: Rhodesia's export earnings fell by well over one-third in the first year after the I.D.I.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is it not about time this stalemate was ended, not by removing sanctions and thereby condoning what Mr. Ian Smith has done but by firmer and stricter measures against Rhodesia?
    Mr. Thomson: There are several stalemates in various parts of the world which I, as an overseas Minister, would very much like to see resolved. But we can only struggle on to try to bring about a settlement in accordance with the principles in which we believe.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of developed and developing countries within the Commonwealth on the present position of Great Britain in relationship to the European Economic Community.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Since we formally presented our application for membership of the European Economic Community on 11th May, consultations have been held in London at ministerial or official level with representatives of New Zealand; Australia; India; Commonwealth coun-
    1110
    tries in the Caribbean; Commonwealth sugar-producing countries; Canada; and Hong Kong. We have also held consultations through our High Commissioners in Rawalpindi and Singapore with Pakistan and Singapore officials.
    Mr. Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, whether it is justified or not, the image is increasingly one of Britain wanting to enter the Common Market at any price and this is giving ground for widespread concern in the Commonwealth, particularly in developing countries? Is there not an urgent need for round-table consultations, particularly on problems of the newer Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Whitlock: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. We have said that we will safeguard essential Commonwealth interests in our negotiations with the Six, and that we intend to do.
    Sir C. Osborne: How can the Govern-men safeguard the interests of developing countries when in the last three years the terms of trade have turned 6 per cent. in our favour and given us £300 million a year at the expense of those developing countries? Is not this the sort of aid they want? Why not give it to them?
    Mr. Whitlock: We are giving a great deal of aid to developing countries and this is a matter on which there is a great deal of consultation internationally at the moment.
    Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend say how many Commonwealth countries have already applied for association with the E.E.C. under the Treaty of Yaounde and how many have indicated that they will do so if Britain enters the Common Market?
    Mr. Whitlock: Those which have not already done so will think of doing so in the light of discussions we may have with the Six.
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will now give an assurance that consultation with the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth will take place before negotiations to enter the European communities reach a conclusion on the matter of sugar imports to this country.
    Mr. Whitlock: Yes Sir. We intend to maintain the fullest measure of consultation with all Commonwealth Governments, including those of sugar-producing countries, both before and during negotiations.
    Mr. Macdonald: If I may assume for the purposes of this question that meaningful negotiations are still possible, may we infer from that reply that a permanent solution satisfactory to the sugar-producing countries is an essential pre-condition to be reached before entering?
    Mr. Whitlock: We have said that we will attempt to negotiate such an agreement, and in the negotiations which will take place round this we shall maintain full consultation with the sugar-producing countries.
    Mr. Allason: Have not the Government indicated that they accept the terms of the Treaty of Rome in full, even if it breaches the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?
    Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir. We have made it quite clear to the Six that we intend to try to safeguard essential Commonwealth interests, and that quite clearly includes the interests of the countries which produce sugar within the Commonwealth.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to safeguard British interests resulting from the civil war in Nigeria.
    Mr. George Thomson: I would refer the hon. Member to what I told the House on 24th October. British interests, like Nigerian interests, will best be served by the early restoration of peace in Nigeria.—[Vol. 751, c. 1486–7.]
    Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we and the Commonwealth, because of our historic links with Nigeria, and also our big material interests there, have a responsibility to help the O.A.U. or any mission to achieve some solution to this awful civil war, which is likely to ruin Nigeria?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, I accept that and I assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government are doing every-
    1112
    thing they can to help the O.A.U. or anyone else who has a contribution to make to bringing people from the battlefield to the conference table.
    Mr. John Lee: Would my right hon. Friend agree to a peace mission headed by himself to go to Nigeria?
    Mr. Thomson: I should like to consider that suggestion very carefully. Every effort is being made at the moment to try to bring peace in this civil war in Nigeria. I think the House will understand that in the special circumstances of any civil war, and particularly this one, perhaps the most effective efforts are made behind the scenes.
    Mr. Braine: In that connection, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any consultations thus far with the O.A.U.? Do the Government contemplate having any consultations with the O.A.U.?
    Mr. Thomson: The O.A.U. mission finally arrived in Lagos a few days ago. A distinguished member of the mission is head of State of Ghana, General Ankrah. We are in touch with General Ankrah about the possibilities.
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has had for help in ensuring an equitable and peaceful settlement in Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has now received to assist in promoting peace talks between the Federal Government of Nigeria and Biafra.
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received for assistance from the Federal Government of Nigeria or the Biafran authorities to provide auspices for talks to end the fighting in that area; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. George Thomson: The answer to each Question is "None, Sir".
    Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt in this country for the possible fate of the Ibo people, and is he aware, also, of the growing concern for many Nigerians, on both

    1113
    sides in the civil war, who are in this country and experiencing mounting difficulties? Is it not possible for him to take an initiative himself in order to resolve the conflict there and restore the Nigerian economy?
    Mr. Thomson: I am aware of the concern on both sides of the House about the sufferings of all sections of the Nigerian people. As I said in answer to an earlier Question, we are daily seeking any practicable means of promoting a peace settlement, but this can be best done privately rather than publicly at this stage.
    Mr. Barnes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are unlikely to be asked to intervene in this affair because of the loss of face involved for the side making the request? But is not Britain in a unique position to take an initiative herself to try to end the present stalemate?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that Britain is in a unique position, but it cuts both ways. We have a unique position of influence with, I believe, all sections of the Nigerian people because of our past association, but there are also special difficulties associated with any public initiative by Her Majesty's Government because we are, after all, the former colonial Power. I sometimes think that many people who are deeply concerned—I recognise their sincerity—about what is happening in Nigeria still feel that we are living in an imperialist age when Britain can order these things about much more than is, in fact, the case.
    Mr. Booth: As the Federal Government cannot come to talks based upon a prior granting of the right of secession to Biafra, will my right hon. Friend offer to arrange talks without this prior condition being made, realising that the first priority must be to stop the fighting in Nigeria?
    Mr. Thomson: Certainly, our priority is to try to contribute in any way we can to the stopping of the fighting, but I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that, in common with every other country in the world, we recognise the Federal Government as the Government of the whole of Nigeria, and it follows from that that we cannot do anything which would recognise the fragmentation of Nigeria.

    Zambia (Mr. Simbule)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what reply has been received from the Government of Zambia to the request made by Her Majesty's Government for clarification of further derogatory remarks made by Mr. Simbule, while acting as High Commissioner, on 12th and 13th August in London and Nairobi, respectively; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 24th October.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Why this delay? Is it not a simple matter, if the reports are wrong, for the High Commissioner to deny them and add that he confirms his original apology? If they are right, is it not quite intolerable that a High Commissioner of the United Kingdom should insult a country to which he has been appointed? When are we to have a new one?
    Mr. Thomson: I ought in frankness to tell the hon. Member that I have no reason to believe that the reports themselves were inaccurate. I repeat to the House that the gentleman concerned has not been back in this country as a resident since he made the remarks now complained of. The best way to get results is to leave the matter to be resolved through diplomatic channels, although I am aware that I am testing the patience of the House on this.

    Anguilla and St. Kitts
    Sir J. Rodgersasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he is yet in a position to make a further statement on the relationship between Anguilla and St. Kitts.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in St. Kitts.
    Mr. George Thomson: Anguilla is part of the unitary State of St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla. Responsibility for the internal government of this associated State, including the arrangements for the administration of its constituent parts,

    1115
    lies with the State authorities and not with Her Majesty's Government.
    Sir J. Rodgers: Is the Secretary of State aware that five men were acquitted on a trumped-up charge of trying to overthrow the Government, that Mr. Bradshaw rushed through an emergency meeting of the Assembly and passed a resolution of no confidence in the island's administration of justice? Is he further aware that the Chief Justice of the Caribbean Association of States accused the St. Kitts Government of contempt of court, prejudicing fair trial, and impeaching the trial judge? Is it any wonder that Anguilla does not wish to be associated with St. Kitts at this moment?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, I am aware of all the very serious matters the hon. Member has just described. They do not, however, come within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. What we are seeking to do to assist in this matter is sending out a small all-party Parliamentary delegation which I think owes something to the hon. Members encouragement and inspiration. That small delegation has now reached the Caribbean and the right thing to do at the moment is to give it a chance of getting down to work.
    Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, as St. Kitts is an associated State, have the Government made a statement on this really disgusting treatment of the judges—a moral protest even—to the Government of St. Kitts? When the mission returns, will the Government consider the question of associating, perhaps in some temporary way, Anguilla with the British Virgin Islands?
    Mr. Thomson: I think the right thing to do is to allow the Parliamentary delegation to get there and to see what it can do on the ground and then to come back to report to the House.
    Mr. Turton: As a British subject was released by order of the Government and then rearrested and deported, surely the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility? Could not the Parliamentary delegation going into Anguilla discuss with the Prime Minister of St. Kitts matters affecting this country and British subjects?
    Mr. Thomson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can rely on the Parliamentary delegation to discuss all these matters, including matters which are causing concern in this country. In regard to the personal case of the gentleman who has just been mentioned, I understand that he has started legal proceedings so it would be improper for me to comment on the merits of that.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in Hong Kong and the task of maintaining peaceful conditions there.
    Mr. George Thomson: So far as the internal situation is concerned, there is little change from the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, on 6th November to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).
    Border exchanges between Hong Kong Government officials and the local Chinese border authorities were concluded on 25th November. As my statement is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Jackson: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that further cases of kidnapping on the Chinese frontier in the new territories are not likely to occur? Can he tell us whether Communist activities in Hong Kong are separated from the designs and policies of the Government in Peking?
    Mr. Thomson: I should not like to commit myself to any prophecy about the future course of events in Hong Kong. I am very happy that the exchanges I have mentioned have resulted in the return to Hong Kong of the two police constables who had been abducted and, as the House knows, the police inspector had earlier made his escape. On the second Question I think events inside Hong Kong, although always a reflection of events on the mainland of China, are not necessarily bound up with them.
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, while the stormy conditions continue in Hong Kong and on the borders, there will be no question

    1117
    of a rundown of our forces, either current or proposed, in the basic garrisons of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Thomson: We shall do everything necessary to give support to the Hong Kong Government in maintenance of law and order and security.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Bill just passed meant to keep order in Hong Kong contains a Clause borrowed from the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia which we regard as having an illegal Government?
    Mr. Thomson: I am not aware of the particular details my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I think he has a detailed Question on that matter on the Order Paper.
    Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the economic situation in Hong Kong? What has been the effect on prices as a result of the recent devaluation and revaluation of the Hong Kong dollar?
    Mr. Thomson: As the House knows the Hong Kong Government first devalued entirely in line with Her Majesty's Government, and, after seeing which other countries had decided to devalue, they took the decision to revalue the currency by 10 per cent. This resulted in a net devaluation in Hong Kong of 5·7 per cent. All the evidence so far is that the response to devaluation in Hong Kong, like the response to the emergency over recent months, has been a very positive one and a good one. There is no sign of business confidence being affected.
    Following is the Statement:
    The exchanges were confined to local frontier issues and agreement was reached on the return to British territory of two Hong Kong policemen who had been in Chinese hands for several weeks; the deportation to China of five persons arrested for offences committed in British territory; the opening of the border bridge at Man Kam To; the relocation of a wire fence which had been erected by the Hong Kong authorities in 1962 for immigration purposes; the making of payments of about £5,000 by the British side to offset losses to certain farmers from Chinese territory resulting from the closure of the Man Kam To Bridge and damage caused to certain graves by the construction of military works in British territory.
    The British side made it clear that they accepted no blame for the closure of Man Kam To Bridge. They also made it clear that
    1118
    any persons from Chinese territory who worked land on the Hong Kong side were free to cross the frontier to engage in farming and other activities provided that they behaved in a normal orderly manner.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if, when the phased reduction takes place in maximum working hours for women and young persons employed in the garment and other industries in Hong Kong, he will take steps to avoid a reduction in their weekly earnings by an increase in wage rates.
    Mr. Whitlock: The reduction of maximum hours of work for women and young persons has been phased over five stages primarily for the purpose of avoiding a serious reduction in total earnings, in that it provides time for adjustment. The temporary permitted increase of overtime will further assist in the process of adjustment.
    Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend greatly strengthen his Labour Department in Hong Kong so as to overcome the almost absolute power of the employers and to ensure that the reduction below 60 hours a week does not result in a reduction in the present appallingly low wages?
    Mr. Whitlock: The Commissioner of Labour in Hong Kong, speaking in the Legislative Council, has already offered the Government's help and guidance to labour and management alike in carrying out the changes. My hon. Friend may rest assured that this will be closely watched. He will be aware that the overall wages paid in Hong Kong are higher than in most Asian countries. They have more than doubled in the past nine years and more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living in that time. There is every prospect that there will be a steady upward trend in the level of wages.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the Minister realise that anything which increases the costs of Hong Kong will greatly please my constituents, but that at the same time, if he overloads the costs in Hong Kong, only Korea, Taiwan and Japan can benefit?
    Mr. Whitlock: I am aware of those difficulties.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Colin Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent plans by Her Majesty's Government for constitutional progress in Gibraltar.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs on what date a constitutional conference on Gibraltar's political future relationship with the United Kingdom will be held; what will be its terms of reference; on what basis the composition of Gibraltar's representatives at such a conference will be arranged; and whether constitutional advisers to the various Gibraltar representational groups or individuals will be permitted.
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet decided if the Indian Merchants' Association and Indian community generally in Gibraltar will be represented at the forthcoming talks on the Gibraltar Constitution.
    Mr. George Thomson: As already announced, we expect to start discussions about the constitution early in the new year. I am still in consultation with the Governor about procedure, and am not yet in a position to add to the replies I gave to various hon. Members on 23rd, 24th and 25th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 373, 1480, 1481 and 514.]
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there has been very considerable dissatisfaction in Gibraltar because it was announced that Her Majesty's Government wished to have talks with the Spanish Government directly after the overwhelming vote in the referendum and before it was decided to have talks between the people of Gibraltar and the British Government?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir; I am aware that some Gibraltarians have expressed this concern. I should have thought that the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government, first in promoting the referendum as a very special case in colonial administration, and secondly in the very robust position we have taken up at the United Nations on behalf of Gibraltar, would have completely reassured the
    1120
    people of Gibraltar that in any talks that take place with the Government of Spain their interests will be fully safeguarded.
    Sir F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the need to make a definite statement soon about the date when these constitutional talks will be held? This announcement was promised before 10th September, and, as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) has said, since then it has been found possible to make an announcement about Anglo-Spanish talks which apparently will not preclude the political future of the Rock? Can he at least give a definite assurance today that these talks will not cover the political future of the Rock at least until the talks with Gibraltar directly have taken place?
    Mr. Thomson: I think that the nature of the proposed talks with Spain, which have now been postponed by the Spanish Government until the new year, has been made plain on a number of occasions by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am aware of the impatience in the House about the need to get ahead with the constitutional discussions in Gibraltar, which are my responsibility. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar and one of his senior colleagues are at present in New York at the United Nations representing the interests of Gibraltar there. This is one reason for a certain amount of delay. I hope to be able to announce further details shortly when my consultations with the Governor are completed.
    Sir W. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I asked him about the Indian question many weeks ago and he said that he would look into it? Does he realise that the Indians were not allowed to vote in the Gibraltar referendum and they are getting very worried about what their position is? Can he not give some clue as to what he feels about their position now?
    Mr. Thomson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. I am sorry that my consultations with the Governor are not complete on this aspect, as on other procedural aspects of the forthcoming discussion.
    Mr. Thorpe: Would it not be better to defer the talks with Spain until after

    1121
    the constitutional talks? Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Gibraltar, who have been under blockade for the past two years, are very concerned that the British Government, in their handling of the passport issue, of the air space issue, and of the currency regulations matter, have been wet and weak towards a Fascist régime which is threatening very loyal British subjects?
    Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept that for a moment. Her Majesty's Government have just completed the very exceptional process of holding a referendum in Gibraltar in order to show Spain and the rest of the world exactly where the people of Gibraltar feel that their true interests lie. The House can be assured that Her Majesty's Government will continue to represent these true interests.
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made to him by the Gibraltar Government, or other representative ye bodies in Gibraltar, to remove from Gibraltarians those restrictions on immigration which are placed on them by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act; and how many Gibraltarians, on an average, apply each year to enter the United Kingdom to work.
    Mr. George Thomson: Representations have been received on several occasions from Gibraltar Ministers and from the Integration with Britain Party in favour of either the amendment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act or alteration of the administrative procedure thereunder so as to reduce or remove difficulties over the immigration of Gibraltarians to Britain.
    The answer to the second part of the Question is 50.
    Sir W. Teeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the place is only about the size of Hyde Park and that from its people, as Sir Joshua Hassan tells me, at the most only about 200 apply to come here in any one year? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the other hand, there were 10,000 applications last year from Spain, Gibraltar's next-door neighbour, and just under 10,000 of these applications were agreed to, whereas only 57 Gibraltarians asked to come—I think that is the figure—and only 19 applications were granted?
    1122
    Ought not something to be done for our own people?
    Mr. Thomson: I feel great sympathy for the position of the Gibraltarians in this matter, and I recognise that we face not so much a large-scale desire for immigration into this country as a deep sense of claustrophobia. We are carefully examining the whole question at the moment. I have the personal difficulty that I must represent the interests of a number of dependent territories as well as of independent Commonwealth countries to Her Majesty's Government and there are difficulties about singling out any one territory. But I understand the general question and shall do my best.

    Zambia (Deported British Subjects)
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has to report on his representations to the Zambian Government for compensation to British subjects who have been deported from Zambia.
    Mr. George Thomson: Our High Commissioner in Lusaka has forwarded claims from seven United Kingdom citizens to the Zambian authorities, and is awaiting their reply. He will continue to press the matter.
    Mr. Baker: Is it not a scandal that a so-called friendly Commonwealth country can behave in this manner without giving any reasons whatever for its action? Will the Secretary of State consider withholding part at least of the generous grant Her Majesty's Government make to Zambia in order that a certain amount of compensation may be paid to those who have suffered?
    Mr. Thomson: Her Majesty's Government, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, have supported these claims on behalf of British citizens because we consider that the claimants were illegally ordered to leave Zambia at unacceptably short notice. The amounts of the claims are a private matter for the claimants. We will certainly do everything we can to support their claims. I never think that it is wise to link directly these individual cases with the general question of the provision of aid to another country.

    Australia (Trade)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what estimate has been given to him by the Australian Government of the expected annual decline in our export trade to Australia as a result of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.
    Mr. Whitlock: All our discussions with the Australian Government about our application for membership of the E.E.C. are confidential and I cannot, therefore, enter into details.
    Mr. Farr: I am not very grateful for that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the newspapers carried a full and detailed report of the Paper which the Australian Minister for Trade submitted to Her Majesty's Government in the spring of this year, which indicated that it would cost this country in lost export trade to Australia £160 million per annum? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that figure and, in that event, say whether he feels that it is altogether too high a price to pay?
    Mr. Whitlock: I do not wish to be drawn into public discussion of satements made by Ministers of other Commonwealth Governments. Obviously, any figures must be largely a matter of speculation, but I should be very surprised if our exports to Australia fell by as much as the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the Government intend to abandon the Commonwealth, why not do it in a decent and straightforward fashion instead of by the method of making futile application to join the Common Market?
    Mr. Whitlock: We are not abandoning the Commonwealth, and the reasons for our application to join the E.E.C. are well understood in Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Braine: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that all of us, on both sides of the House, greatly value our traditional ties with Australia? What positive steps are the Government taking, or proposing to take, to promote greater trade and investment in Australia's expanding
    1124
    markets, irrespective of whether we go into the Common Market or not?
    Mr. Whitlock: Every effort is being made to expand our trade with Australia. Obviously, our exports to Australia are a valuable part of our export trade, and every attempt is being made to increase them.

    British Honduras
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now announce the date of a referendum in British Honduras to enable the inhabitants freely to decide their own political future.
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the constitutional future of British Honduras.
    Mr. George Thomson: The position on constitutional development remains as stated by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Adjournment debate on 12th August, 1966.—[Vol. 733, c. 2056.]
    The political future of British Honduras is not in dispute locally and there is no occasion to consider a referendum on that point. As regards the dispute with Guatemala, we have undertaken that the wishes of British Honduras will be consulted when the mediator has presented his proposals. We shall then ask the Government of British Honduras how they wish this consultation to be carried out.
    Sir F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman today confirm the universality of his dedication to the principles of self-determination by reaffirming positively that the wishes of the people of British Honduras will be respected when this question does arise, as consultation by itself is not of decisive importance to this House?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir, the wishes of British Honduras, after consultations have taken place, will be respected by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Leaving aside the question whether there ought to be mediation at all, will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is the people as distinct from the Government of British

    1125
    Honduras whose wishes will be consulted and that their worries about the possibility of a sell-out to Guatemala will be dissipated as fast as possible?
    Mr. Thomson: The form of consultation is something one would need to look at at the time it takes place; but British Honduras, in common with other dependent British territories, has a democratically elected Government and it is appropriate, therefore, that consultation in the first instance should be through that Government.
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend giving the House an absolute assurance that, in the event of any arrangements whatever being made which give Guatemala any rights and powers over British Honduras policy in any field there will first be consultation with all parties and all opinions in British Honduras?
    Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friends asks a wide range of hypothetical questions. I repeat to him Her Majesty's Government's position, that the wishes of British Honduras will be consulted when the mediator presents his proposals.
    Mr. Braine: Is not the right hon. Gentleman seized of the deep anxiety felt on both sides of the House? He refers to the wishes of British Honduras or to the Government there when he talks of consultations. Is he not seized of the desire on both sides to be assured that the people of this territory will be consulted about their future?
    Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir, I understand that; but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman would greatly resent it if, in any community in which he was an elected representative, the Government of that community were by-passed. Surely, the democratic Government of a community is the right avenue for making arrangements for consultation.

    Developing Countries (Agreements)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from developing countries of the Commonwealth to vary agreements made on their achieving independence.
    Mr. Whitlock: The agreements to which the hon. Member refers could be of
    1126
    a number of kinds and may have been concluded many years ago. I therefore hesitate to give a categorical answer, but if the hon. Member will let me know what type of agreement or particular country he has in mind I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. Tilney: Since various agreements covering public servants have been the responsibility of the Minister's predecessors, is he aware of the excessive income tax claim by the Government of Ceylon, the non-payment of pensions by the eastern region of Nigeria, and the claim of the Government of Tanzania for the British Government to be responsible for the pensions of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants? Will he consider taking on that responsibility and reducing aid accordingly?
    Mr. Whitlock: The question whether the British Government should assume responsibility for pensions for British expatriate officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. The Tanzanian representations are at present under consideration by the Departments concerned. Although my right hon. Friend naturally has a close interest in the matter, it is primarily one of responsibility for the Minister of Overseas Development.

    Dependent Territories (Public Lotteries)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the dependent territories in which public lotteries have been operated; in how many dependent territories such lotteries continue to be operated; and with what financial result.
    Mr. Whitlock: I am having inquiries made and will publish the results in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they have been completed.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister state that it is the Government's view that these things are not immoral and that they produce money?
    Mr. Whitlock: We leave it to the territories concerned to make proposals. There are in operation in Hong Kong and Gibraltar two public lotteries which I understand are very successful.

    Tanzania
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations between Tanzania and Great Britain.
    Mr. George Thomson: The break in relations brought about by Tanzania in December, 1965, still remains. The hon. Member will know that I had a talk with President Nyerere on 28th October at Arusha during my recent African tour. I indicated then that we are ready to resume relations if asked to do so.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that the British public is a little fed up yith a situation in which the only hands of friendship extended to us are extended with the palm upwards?
    Mr. Thomson: I get a bit fed up sometimes, but it is important to have normal relations with a Commonwealth country like Tanzania. But I want to make it clear that this is up to Tanzania.

    GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister if he will make a Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government information services in the United Kingdom, and for answering Parliamentary Questions on this subject.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 8th December, 1966.—[Vol. 737, c. 1571.]
    Sir T. Beamish: Does the Prime Minister thing that the appointment of only 122 extra P.R.O.s and Press Officers in the Government Departments during the past three years, at a cost of £500,000 a year, is sufficient to improve the Government's popularity? Does not he think that there is a case for a whole lot more?
    The Prime Minister: The appointment of official public relations officers is not related to party functions or Government popularity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is once again confusing the appoint-
    1128
    ment of Ministers for Tory Party propaganda in the past.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister accept that if it was one of the P.R.O.s who yesterday released the good news that the Industrial Expansion Bill is to be shelved he is certainly worth his keep? Will the Prime Minister now confirm that the Bill is to be dropped?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. The story to which he refers did not come from any Government P.R.O., nor is it true.
    Mr. Heath: Can the Prime Minister then say the source of the report?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have no idea of the source of the report. The reports I read referred to a quite inaccurate account of the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the C.B.I., but the report could have come neither from him nor from the C.B.I. because the matter was not discussed at that meeting.

    CAMPING FACILITIES (DEVELOPMENT)
    Dr, David Kerrasked the Prime Minister whether he will now transfer full responsibilty for the development of camping facilities in Great Britain to the Department of Education and Science.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The development of camping facilities has a part to play in the Departmental work of a number of my right hon. Friends and is best handled by them. There is, of course, full co-ordination between the Departments concerned.
    Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are about 2 million campers in this country, and many more who want to come here from overseas and enjoy camping facilities? Could not he do something to ensure that the integration to which he referred leads to better provision of camping sites and facilities, with consequent saving of overseas expenditure and an increase in invisible earnings?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has taken up with my right

    1129
    hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the importance of camping facilities here for international tourists visiting Britain. I do not think that the right answer is to have one Department responsible. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mast be responsible on forestry land, and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales have responsibilities. There is also the question of the Countryside Bill. I do not think that it would be right to concentrate everything under one Minister.

    UNEMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures and the Government's plans to deal with the situation.
    The Prime Minister: The seasonally-adjusted number of wholly unemployed, excluding school leavers, decreased by 5,000 in November to 536,000. As to the Government's plans to deal with the situation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches of myself and my right hon. Friends in the recent debate on the economic situation.—[Vol. 754, c. 1140, 1262, 1330 and 1433.]
    Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is still countrywide concern at the present unemployment figures and the figures for the coming months, if not the next couple of years, which are so important to our movement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What is to stop the active participation of State enterprises, particularly in the areas where older industries are to be run down and where it is shown that private enterprise is failing the nation in the export drive?
    The Prime Minister: As to the concern referred to by my hon. Friend, I said in the debate a fortnight ago that all of us regard the present figure as too high. My hon. Friend will be glad to have seen that over the past three months, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, the numbers of wholly unemployed adults fell by 23,000 and unfilled vacancies have risen by over 26,000. The estimate I made even before devaluation was that the expectation was that a year from now unemployment will
    1130
    be considerably less than the present figure.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since 5 million jobs depend directly on exports, and we cannot compel the foreigner to buy our goods, how can the Prime Minister guarantee those 5 million jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I always agree with what the hon. Geitleman says about the importance of exports to the economy. Now our exporters have a unique opportunity to get the orders. It rests with them. I hope that they will go out and get those orders.
    Mr. Thorpe: Since we are faced still with one of the highest unemployment figures for the past 27 years, will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to whether there are adequate retraining facilities, albeit with the expected increase, and to whether the Minister of Labour's Department should not be strengthened to keep lists of job vacancies and of workers available to fill them?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the sharp expansion in training facilities, announced successively over the past few months, and also of the additional steps taken to bring work to areas where there is a shortage of work. As I have told the House on a number of occasions, and as I have just substantiated, the figures of the last few months show that the trend of unemployment, apart from the usual winter movement, has turned markedly down.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Why do not the Government step into the development areas and establish industries for export there, as they promised to do before the election?
    The Prime Minister: There has already been very much development of export industries in development areas in the last three years—indeed, at a record level—and we have provided additional facilities and incentives for other export industries to go there.
    Mr. Carr: The right hon Gentleman has provided figures of a seasonally adjusted trend for the last couple of months before devaluation. In these post-devaluation days, how does he foresee the trend of seasonally adjusted figures for the next six months?
    The Prime Minister: The general expectation would be that, as a result of devaluation, particularly with the opportunities in export markets—not all of which, of course, can be seized in a matter of days—and also with the possibilities of import replacement, unemployment a year from now should be much less serious—indeed, for the next six months it should be much less serious—than was previously forecast. We are faced with the inevitable increase on seasonal grounds in the months from November to February but I repeat that, a year from now, it is more likely, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, that we shall be facing problems of pressure upon resources than of unemployment.
    Mr. Maudling: Has the Prime Minister formed an estimate of the amount by which home demand must be reduced in order to get an improvement of £500 million in the balance of payments?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot at the moment add to what my right hon. Friend said in the devaluation debate. As my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, we shall be watching this situation, calculating it right up to the Budget and beyond. We have given priority to all measures to release resources for export in that period to put our balance of payments right.
    Mr. Bob Brown: While we are happy that the Government are showing determination to fill the needs of the development areas in the first place and not returning to the selective full employment we had pre-July, 1966, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that we can undertake this job rapidly enough without a direct State intervention in the form of State industries and factories?
    The Prime Minister: What we have announced about State industries in these areas, and particularly the use of State procurement to get more orders placed in development areas, means that certainly the prospects of the development areas are now improving, and, of course, the boost given by the export opportunities following devaluation should be of great help to the development areas because of the increased incentives and the factory space there waiting for new factory expansion.

    ADEN (INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATIONS)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an invitation to attend the Aden independence celebrations.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Peyton: Is not that rather a pity? Would not such a visit give the Prime Minister an invaluable opportunity to form a lively impression of the prospects of stability in that area? He might also be able to formulate some criteria of general application upon which independence is granted to other countries.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that was meant in a helpful and constructive manner. What I have not heard from the hon. Gentleman or from his right hon. and hon. Friends is any constructive alternative to the action we took in Aden, which, in our view, was right. All of us recognise the difficulties both at the time and for the future. The course we took was right.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: While I understand the Prime Minister's Answer, may I ask whether he would agree that, after the six-months' period of aid at the rate of £12 million, we cannot sustain aid at anything like that scale and that aid must come from the Arab neighbours of South Yemen in future?
    The Prime Minister: That is a reasonable approach to the problem. I cannot say whether the independence celebrations, to which I have not sought an invitation, will take place within six months or not. I have nothing to add, on the question of aid, to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said when he specifically related our aid to a period of six months.
    Mr. Gardner: Notwithstanding the sad history of Aden and the whole of South Arabia in recent years, will my right hon. Friend accept that most of us on this side wish to see him maintaining the friendliest possible relations with this new country?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House and, of course, friendly relations involve a

    1133
    two-way attitude—ourselves and them. Some of the most bitter fights for independence, both under right hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves, have been followed by the friendliest of relations once independence has become effective.

    NUCLEAR DETERRENT
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what discussions he is proposing to have with other Heads of State about internationalising Great Britain's nuclear deterrent.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 11th July to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker).—[Vol. 750, c. 412.]
    Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether, as a country, we still have the right to use our strategic nuclear forces if the independence of this country is threatened? Secondly—and we all hope that this is a hypothetical question, as we hope that the deterrent will never have to be used—is it the Government's intention to continue their policy of independent use in the cause of peace?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows our position. Our present nuclear forces, which do not yet include Polaris, are committed to N.A.T.O. We have the right to withdraw them after consultation with N.A.T.O. The future of Polaris is still a matter for negotiation and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important work of the Nuclear Planning Group in this connection.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Prime Minister work out how much would be saved if the fleet of Polaris submarines was not commissioned but put into mothballs instead? In view of the state of the economy, will he seriously consider this?
    The Prime Minister: I know the deep interest the hon. Gentleman takes in this matter hut I am sorry to say that the saving by mothballing the Polaris fleet when complete would be a great deal less than he probably imagines.
    Mr. Horner: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to study the recent report of
    1134
    the Nuclear Weapons Commission of the United Nations, which clearly condemns the continued existence of individual weapons systems such as our own Polaris? Is he aware that one of the co-signatories of the report was the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Solly Zuckerman?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the report pinpointed Britain. It called for progress towards general and universal disarmament, for which we have been continuously working, as did our predecessors, from the moment we took office. The most immediate requirement is a non-proliferation agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to States which do not have them.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my right hon. Friend states that we ourselves will never use nuclear weapons first, how will we be in a position to use them second?
    The Prime Minister: The statement about our use of nuclear weapons represents the view always held by this side of the House and, indeed, by our predecessors. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the matter is not quite as simple as he has in mind.

    FAST BREEDER REACTORS
    Dr. David Owenasked the Prime Minister if he will put forward proposals for establishing a European Development Corporation for the exploitation of fast breeder reactors.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have made clear that we would welcome European co-operation in the development and exploitation of fast reactors and are already in touch with other European countries to this end.

    ENRICHED URANIUM (TECHNOLOGY)
    Dr. David Owenasked the Prime Minister what specific Anglo-American agreement prevents Great Britain sharing with other European countries the technology of partially enriched uranium.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Dr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Atomic Energy Commission has already started to negotiate with private industry for the sharing of technology, which implies that it does not take a secret agreement very seriously? Can he press the Americans to try to ensure that we can share this technology with our European partners?
    The Prime Minister: In my first Answer, I explained that there is no such, as my hon. Friend put it, "specific" Anglo-American agreement preventing a sharing with European countries of this technology. There are difficult questions about our national and commercial interests if we made this available except as part of something extremely valuable to ourselves. This is why I stressed the importance of co-operation in my speech at Guildhall. We must be dominated in this matter by considerations of national interest but there is no such agreement as envisaged by my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider taking some active steps to bring about a decision from Euratom first of all to continue financing the Dragon project at Winfrith?
    The Prime Minister: That is a specific question and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put it down on the Order Paper. With regard to general relations with Europe, we are only too anxious to enter into bilateral or multilateral nuclear agreements, whether for the provision of reactors or, as in the Question, for the provision on a European and not on an American basis of enriched fuel.
    Mr. Hogg: Has not the difficulty always been the extraordinary reluctance of European Powers with atomic inclinations to make use of our vastly superior technology? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear both the advantages of their doing so to them and the reluctance of the Government to do so except on a mutual basis of advantage?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree. The difficulty outlined by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the difficulty all along and it still is. Indeed, in Versailles in June, I dis-
    1136
    cussed this question with President de Gaulle and it is a fact that, despite their great advantage in water power, we are fully competitive, without those advantages in our production of enriched Uranium 235. Of course we shall be glad, on a mutually advantageous basis, and only on such a basis, to work with our French friends or anyone else in making Europe less dependent on outside supplies, both of reactors and fuel.
    Mr. Lubbock: Has the Prime Minister noted the view of the Select Committee on Science and Technology that internationalisation of our fuel enrichment capability offers an excellent opportunity for collaboration between us and the E.E.C.? Does not this concept fit in well with the ideas he has expressed so enthusiastically for a European technological community?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted that important recommendation by the Select Committee and I fully agree with it. Indeed, this view is the basis of what I said at Guildhall and in recent talks with the Belgian Prime Minister and of all our approaches on the atomic side of technological co-operation with our partners in Europe.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of yesterday's statement about non-proliferation, with its European implications, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that nothing will be done under the cloak of international security to deprive Britain of her lead in the civil uses of atomic energy?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure to which statement the hon. Gentleman is referring, but in the matter of civil use of atomic energy we are absolutely free. We intend to use that freedom to work with our partners in Europe and more widely in the promotion of our national interest and in the promotion of exports.

B.O.A.C. (PILOTS)
Mr. R. Carr(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement regarding the threatened strike by B.O.A.C. pilots.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Since I reported to the House on 13th November the British Air Line

1137
Pilots' Association has called a strike on 9th and 10th December of its members in B.O A.C., who have been working to rule since 1st November.
I have discussed the situation with representatives of B.A.L.P.A. and with both sides of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. From these discussions it appears that both B.A.L.P.A. and the organisations represented on the N.J.C. are willing in principle to take part in a working party to consider changes in the procedure and structure of the N.J.C.
B.A.L.P.A. is, however, prepared to do so only if it can have immediate and direct negotiations with B.O.A.C. outside the National Joint Council. The Corporation, on the other hand, while willing to negotiate with B.A.L.P.A., feels able to do so only within the N.J.C.
The B.A.L.P.A. representatives, at my last discussion with them, while reaffirming this attitude undertook to give further consideration to their position. I am meeting representatives of the Association later this afternoon.
Mr. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that a dispute so damaging to the national interest ought not to be allowed to escalate because of a procedural wrangle about who talks to whom and where? Would not this be perhaps even more silly than a dispute about who sits where?
Secondly, could not the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative, on the understanding that it would be without prejudice to the future position of hte N.J.C. and B.A.L.P.A.'s membership of it, for B.O.A.C. to meet B.A.L.P.A., perhaps under independent chairmanship?
Mr. Gunter: The last point is what I want to talk to B.A.L.P.A. about this afternoon. However, the position is a little more difficult than merely procedure. The great fear of the National Joint Council, of both the unions and the Corporation, is that if one union breaks away there w ill be another 15 who will be able to say that they will all fight their separate battles in their separate ways. They are afraid of anarchy. However, at 4 o'clock I shall be talking to B.A.L.P.A.
Mr. Doughty: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pilots left the National
1138
Joint Council as long ago as last June, having acted perfectly properly in giving six months' notice, that Mr. Scamp inquired into their action and said that there was nothing illegal or wrong with it, and that now although they are not members of the Council, the pilots are asked to rejoin to negotiate? Could there not be terrible damage if B.O.A.C. insists on negotiating with a body of which the pilots are not members? Would it not take years to recover from the results of the worldwide damage to the goodwill of this important airline?
Mr. Gunter: That is true, but it must be remembered that although Mr. Jack Scamp and his committee said that the pilots were entitled to leave the Council if they wished there was a striking paragraph in their report which was almost a desperate plea to B.A.L.P.A. to rejoin it, because the difficulties which would arise with the other unions were foreseen. There is another point to which Sir Giles Guthrie has drawn attention. If direct negotiations, with all the dangers which could arise, were permitted with all the other unions, there would be no rules on which to negotiate, no arbitration and conciliation machinery. There would be what Mr. Scamp has called a complete absence of ground rules. That is one of the arguments which the Chairman of B.O.A.C. advances.
Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when he considers suggestions put to him by hon. Members opposite, that nothing would be gained for the Corporation or the national interest if it came about that the Corporation talked to the pilots outside the machinery of the National Joint Council and then found, as a result, that it was not able to talk to any of its other employees?
Mr. Gunter: I am well aware of the dangers. I do not know what B.A.L.P.A.'s reactions would be, but any informal talks at this stage could not have anything to do with pay. I am much struck by the phrase used by B.A.L.P.A. which says that it is unable to talk about talking. If the deadlock is to be broken—and I do not know what B.A.L.P.A.'s reactions would be—it is possible that it might get something off its chest on the subject of labour relations which has been there for a very long time.

1139
However, I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of discussing anything to which the National Joint Council could take exception. There will be informal talks and there may be discussions about labour relations which, in the opinion of the Association, have been bad.
Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until the moment when B.O.A.C. declared that it would close down the airways if the pilots came out on strike, the pilots were not thinking of any definite strike? Could he not get B.O.A.C. to rethink that disastrous statement?
Mr. Gunter: I do not want to be put into any difficulty. I can only reflect that unfortunate statements have been made.
Mr. Bessell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this strike will draw attention to industrial disputes in this country in a wholly undesirable and very dramatic way and that it could do a great deal of damage to our prestige abroad? Will he now intervene personally because, by comparison with the pilots of other airlines, the pilots have a genuine grievance which should be met?
Mr. Gunter: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by intervening personally. I am a bit fed up with intervening. I have a lot of meetings to go to.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend take the view that this strike is part of an international conspiracy to destroy the British economy? Is there any evidence that the pilots' policy is dictated by the Communists?
Mr. Gunter: That is one thing I am sure of—it is not.
Mr. Onslow: Is it not deplorable that this strike, which is wholly against the national interest, should apparently be provoked in part by the pressures and jealousies of rival unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman represent that point of view to Mr. Clive Jenkins, among others?
Mr. Gunter: I do not think that that is true. I do not think that this is a matter of rival unions. It is a fact that national machinery has been built up over
1140
20 years. It has its faults, as Mr. Scamp has said, but there is no reason why its defects should not be gone into. The fear of the unions and of the employers is the disintegration of that machinery.
Mr. Onslow indicated dissent.
Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I know.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is not the support which the pilots are receiving from hon. Members opposite somewhat sinister? Is it not the case that hon. Members opposite are always ready to support claims for more money for those who have a lot already and still less for those who have very little?
Capt. Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a matter of money, but of negotiations? Can he say whether the other unions, who appear to be so keen to remain within the N.J.C., have threatened to leave if the Corporation talks directly to B.A.L.P.A.?
Mr. Gunter: Statements have been made about the three-year agreement which has already been discussed. I do not want to pursue that.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement.
During the closing minutes of the debate on agriculture in the House last night, I referred to page 31 of the Annual Review White Paper as evidence that United Kingdom agricultural net output had gone down. What I had in mind was the decline in the net output in a number of years up to 1958–59. I appreciate, however, that, looking at the longer period up to 1964–65, the trend is upward. I did, therefore, mislead the House and I apologise sincerely for having done so.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)
Dame Joan Vickers: On a point of order. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a statement on 27th November, c. 68 of HANSARD, when the Minister of Defence referred to me,

1141
according to HANSARD, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport.
The right hon. Gentleman has now written to me to say that he meant Portsmouth, West and was sending a copy of the letter to the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, who, I gather, is making a correction. I have seen the Minister's brief, where Portsmouth, West was written. This had been changed in red ink by the HANSARD reporter to Plymouth, Devonport.
It is a pity that action was not taken to rectify the matter as the speech was being read through instead of its being left until I had sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter expressing the alarm and anxiety felt in my constituency about the mistake.
Mr. Speaker: I had a word with the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT about the matter which the hon. Lady has raised. The alteration which caused her distress, quite understandably, was made by the reporter, who judged from the context that he had made an error and who, therefore, corrected it and substituted the name of one port for the other. The error was made by the reporter. It will be corrected in the Bound Volume. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has already written to the hon. Lady about it.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (LETTER OF INTENT)
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the first speaker in the debate, I wish to point out that it ends in exactly three hours. I have already more than 25 hon. Members who wish to take part in it and I shall be grateful if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will speak briefly.
Mr. Michael Foot: May I, first, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the decision which you made yesterday about Standing Order No. 9? But in doing so I apologise to my hon. Friends from mining constituencies for the inconvenience which is caused to them by this intrusion. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who is one of my oldest friends in the House, that after this intrusion I shall be quite happy to leave to him the conduct of the rest of the month's Parliamentary proceedings.
Some of us sought to press this debate in the belief that it raised issues of the utmost gravity for the conduct of the British economy. It is in that spirit that I wish to raise the matter. But I should like, first, to make one personal reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that it is really necessary for me to say this, but I should like him to understand that my hon. Friends and I who have raised this matter do not do so in any personal spirit of ill-will towards him—indeed, we might be able to assist him.
When one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors, Disraeli, was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was momentarily bashful because he did not know much about finance. He approached his leader, Lord Derby, Leader of the Conservative Party at that time, and explained the position. But Lord Derby replied, "Oh, don't bother; they give you the figures". I am sure that whatever might have happened in years gone by, or days gone by, that does not apply to my right hon. Friend. I assure him that we raise the subject because we wish to discuss the Government's whole attitude to the policy issues involved.

1143
I want, first, to recall the sequence of events which has led to this debate. On Monday, 20th November, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his devaluation statement, referred only briefly to the subject of credit facilities, saying:
"They have been assembled as an indication that the international monetary centres of the world are united with us in their determination to put an end to speculation against one of the world's key currencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 938.]
And he went on to refer to the stand-by credit in that sense.
The following day we had a speech from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who did not refer directly to credit facilities but who spoke of a loan in more general terms, saying:
"Another alternative might have been a further massive long-term loan, designed to give us the extra time required for our longer-term policies to work. But there were two over-riding objections to this course. First, it would almost certainly have been accompanied by unacceptable conditions as to our domestic policy, and these we were not prepared to accept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1144.]
Then came the reference to the matter by the Prime Minister in the debate on 22nd November, when, in reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), my right hon. Friend, referring to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
"My right hon. Friend made it clear on Monday that we were not borrowing for the purpose of living on the sum borrowed, but that it was what might be called a deterrent, to make it absolutely crystal clear, if it was not clear already, that speculation at the new parity was not worth the gain—and with no strings. The loans from the central banks have no strings whatever, as was stated clearly on British television by Dr. Emminger on Monday night, in the same programme in which the right hon. Gentleman took part"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1335.]
That was the Prime Minister early that afternoon. Later that evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the most extensive reference to the question of standby credit facilities. I will not read the whole of what he said, because it takes most of a column. He later insisted that the standby credit—not a loan—was for us to use to repel speculation. Previously, however, he had said, because of the rumours that were prevailing:
"I therefore want to say now that I have seen the staff of the International Monetary
1144
Fund this morning and they are themselves discussing the matter with Dr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer. There are regular procedures, as will be known, for going through before a standby credit is established. I want the House to know that on this occasion these procedures are being dealt with much more quickly than on a normal occasion. There is no delay." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1435.]
He went on to describe the standby facilities that were being provided.
That was on 22nd November. On 23rd November, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer sent the Letter of Intent to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. After the ball was over he sent his billet doux to the managing director. At that time we did not know what was in it. The first hon. Member who understood the implications of what was in it was my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who had seen reports in the newspapers, and he raised the matter last Thursday. But the full document was not published until that night. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, however, in his replies to questions, insisted that no conditions attached to the standby credit.
I thought that my right hon. Friend went too far in saying that, and I believe that that is the view of many people, and not merely Members of the House. For example, there is the statement in the Sun, two days ago, by Mr. Paul Bareau, who is not generally unfavourable to the Government's policies. He refers to the I.M.F.'s book of rules. It seems that they have books of rules as well as some other people. He refers to the book of rules and quotes from it, saying:
"Members may enter into standby arrangements with the Fund … if the Member observes the conditions; for example, specific policies which the Member has indicated it intends to pursue in the fields of exchange, monetary and fiscal matters."
When is a condition not a condition? I do not believe that we can be fobbed off with a conundrum.
Mr. Bareau goes on to state the matter quite fairly. I shall be interested to know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor thinks that this is a fair statement. Mr. Bareau says:
"The point is that the standby would not have been secured without assurances of correct economic behaviour."

1145
That is what he says is the meaning of the Letter of Intent.
Now let me come to the letter itself. I shall not refer to all the Articles, but Article 9 sets out the numerous occasions on which consultations are to take place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and representatives of the British Government, and the Managing Director of the I.M.F. The first is to take place in February, 1968—quite a significant date. The review is to take place of the balance of payments situation of the country and consultations are to take place with the managing director at that time, in February. They are also planned for July and November. The insistence upon actual times of negotiation is very precise and regular.
Mr. Bareau suggests that Article 10 is the most important in the whole document. I presume that he is referring to the paragraph which says:
"So far as can be seen at present, this entails holding down the borrowing requirements to not more than £1 billion—the appropriateness of which estimate and the measures necessary to ensure that it is achieved will be reviewed with the Managing Director in accordance with the timetable specified in paragraph 9."
Some people, including Mr. Bareau, say that that paragraph and that figure involves an extra £300 million either in extra taxation or extra cuts in Government expenditure, over and above the one announced to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "£400 million."] Some say that it is £400 million. That is the view published in the Sunday Times on Sunday, and reported to be the view of people in Washington who are in close association with the International Monetary Fund. If that is true Article 10 is an extremely important one.
Article 12 is also important, referring to wages and prices and the new vetting arrangements that the Government are to seek to secure. Article 13 is in some respects the most offensive of the lot. It deals with exchange control. It seems to me a quite gratuitous thing to have to make a general statement of policy about exchange control when we are only supposed to be securing a standby credit for a short period. The Article says:
"The Government is determined to maintain the new parity without resort to any additional restrictions on currency payments or intensification of the present restrictions. The Govern-
1146
ment, moreover, intends to abolish all remaining restrictions on current transfers and payments as soon as the balance of payments allows. Similarly, as the balance of payments strengthens, the Government will consider what relaxations can be made in the present restrictions on capital transfers."
Hon. Members opposite may approve that doctrine, but it seems strange for Members on this side to do so. One of the main arguments is that the difficulties that we have got into arose because of the free movement of capital allowed in 1964. We have heard a lot about the £800 million deficit. Part of that was due to the lax way in which exchange controls were operated. We have also had a situation where there has been a considerable increase in the capital taken out of the country—some going to South Africa—in recent years, when we have been most hardly pressed.
It is a shocking thing that the Government, in this Letter of Intent, should have told the International Monetary Fund that they would ensure that we get back to the kind of absence of any exchange control which we know is what the bankers have always wanted. Indeed, we should be putting things into reverse. This is part of the poison that has caused the trouble. In the letter we say that we shall commit ourselves to taking extra doses as soon as possible.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case against the Government, but rather inaccurately, because the letter says:
"Similarly, as the balance of payments strengthens"—
that is all right, is it not?—
"the Government will consider what relaxations can be made in the present restrictions on capital transfers".
It predicates a strengthening of the balance of payments. If we join the Common Market—and the majority of the House agrees with that proposal—we shall have to allow capital transfers as it is.
Mr. Foot: That is one further disadvantage of joining the Common Market. I am glad that my hon. Friend has the point at last. It has taken us about 10 years to get it into his head. The whole House knows the appalling extra burden on our balance of payments problems which entry into the Common Market would entail. But I should be

1147
out of order if I proceeded with that argument.
There are other objectionable Articles, but I want to quote only the final one. The right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) thinks that part of this document is translated from the French. He is quite wrong. There is a deflationary bankers' language, which is the same the world over—a kind of excruciating Esperanto. Article 16 says:
"The Government believe that the policies here outlined are adequate to achieve the economic goals described in this letter. If, however, present policies should turn out to be inadequate, the Government is firmly determined to take such further measures as may be necessary to achieve these goals. If, in the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom or the Managing Director of the Fund, the policies are not producing the desired improvement in the balance of payments, the Government of the United Kingdom will consult with the Fund, during the period of the standby arrangement and as long thereafter as Fund holdings of sterling exceed 125 per cent. of quota, to find appropriate solutions."
When I read that document I was amazed and shocked. I could not believe that, after all the undertakings we had from the Government Front Bench about the absence of strings and conditions, the Government would have entered into such an elaborate labyrinthine commitment as that. I could not believe it.
I know that there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who perhaps will say that these are quite normal matters, that this is regular procedure—that is what the Chancellor said—that it is common form, and that this is the kind of document which has to be signed if we borrow money from international bankers. If that is the case—against what I am arguing—there are some preliminary questions which follow. I will come to the major questions later.
First, if that is the position, can we have all these Letters of Intent published? I think that my right hon. Friend set a proper example. If the document has been signed and dispatched it is right that it should be published. Therefore, we should have published the document signed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the previous one signed by this Government, because they might tell us a lot about the economic history of the
1148
last few years. It would be interesting to co-ordinate these documents with the arguments that we have had about prices and incomes policy.
The first thing I ask the Chancellor to do, then, is to get the agreement of the Government that we should have all these Letters of Intent published so that the people will know exactly what is the relationship between this country and the foreign bankers, because, in my opinion, this goes to the very core not merely of our financial structure, but even of our democracy.
The second question I put to my right hon. Friend—although maybe it is the Prime Minister who should answer it and not him—is: was the approval of this Letter of Intent unanimous in the Cabinet? The Prime Minister went out of his way—breaking convention in some degree, though I do not complain about that—to tell us that the package that was presented to us on Saturday, 25th November, was unanimously agreed. Did they all agree to the Letter of Intent? We would like to know whether there was unanimous agreement. I would be surprised to think that the whole of the Cabinet had agreed to the letter.
The third question is: if this is the regular procedure, and if it had all been agreed by the Cabinet, why did they not tell us? Why did they not tell the House of Commons and why did they not tell the country? Why did they not tell us during the debate, when references were made to the credit facilities? It would have been open to the Chancellor to say, "I cannot read the whole letter, but I would like the House to know that whenever we borrow money, even on a standby basis, we have to write a letter to the managing director in the same terms which we did not mention before, but we will this time. These are the terms that we have to sign, terms which affect the whole range of economic policy"—because that is what they do affect.
Those are preliminary questions. The main question is: what are the economic consequences for this country of this Letter of Intent? Let us take, first, how it affects the very considerable section of the community which some of us think should most of all be protected by a Labour Government—the section of

1149
the community which will be most adversely affected by devaluation and the consequent increase in prices.
The Government, in their statement to the House—upon which we voted—said that they were absolutely committed to introducing measures in the spring or at an early period for increasing social benefits. That is what they must have meant. That was included in the statement made to the House, but it was not included in the Letter of Intent to the bankers. Nor is it mentioned in the addendum to the Letter of Intent of the measures introduced.
That is very strange. Do the Government think that they will deceive the bankers about it? Even bankers can read. Do the Government think that they will deceive them, because the bankers will be able to discover this. It may be that bankers can add up as well as react and they might make the addition and say, "If the Government are committed"—as they are—"to introducing measures for increasing social benefits of a very considerable character, that must add to the Government expenditure". Quite rightly so, in my opinion. But what is the point of concealing it or attempting to conceal it or not including it in the letter or not putting a figure on it? If the Government want to convince the bankers, they should put a figure on it so that we should be able to see what is involved.
Many hon. Members will remember very well that in October, 1964, when we were seeking to secure an earlier payment to old-age pensioners, we were told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) how it was not possible for the Government to go ahead as fast as they wished because of the international pressures to which they were subjected then.
What will happen? When the Government do proceed to carry out the pledge which they made to the House and the country as part of their devaluation package of increasing social benefits, all the bankers wake up and say, "No, we are not in favour of that." Very often they have been opposed to it and they might protest, so it might have been better to include it in the Letter of Intent if that is what was intended.
Mr. Wyatt: Does my hon. Friend think that the letter goes far enough?
Mr. Foot: The letter should state the fact that the Government is committed.
I turn to the other matter that is governed by the letter—the scale of deflation that we will have in this country over the coming months. The scale of deflation will be partly determined by that letter, partly determined by the commitments in that letter, and partly by the calculation of how much more money has to be taken out of the economy to satisfy the bankers that we are proceeding to carry out the policy that they approved. Or are we to be told that that is no problem, because the British Chancellor will always agree with the head of the International Monetary Fund about these matters?
I would not make such an accusation against my right hon. Friend. I do not think they will always agree. For if they do, why change Chancellors, or why even change Governments if they will always agree with what the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund has to say about how our economy should be run. That concurrence would remove from the field of politics most of the major issues. Some of us are determined that they shall not be so removed. Some of us are determined that we shall not accept the doctrines of the bankers in these matters. We say that partly on moral grounds.
What Mr. Bareau describes as correct economic behaviour or what the bankers like to regard as correct economic behaviour some of us regard as being an outrage against humanity; that is, the maintenance of a higher level of unemployment than is required in any sense whatsoever. So we do not accept the bankers view about that and we are not prepared to have somebody in the International Monetary Fund dictating to this country what should be the level of unemployment.
Over and above that, we know that this country has been operating for considerable periods under these Letters of Intent. Look where it has led us; look at the policy that they have prescribed to us. In all these great crises the bankers have always thrown their influence on the side of a severe deflation. If we were to add up the total wealth

1151
that this country has squandered in 1953, 1957, 1961, 1965 and 1966, with its deflationary policies, if we had not carried through those policies throughout those years, huge amounts of wealth would have been added to this country. Nobody knows that better than the Front Bench, because this is what they preached prior to 1964. They said that the paramount aim of our policy must be to secure expansion so that there shall be no such wasted resources. We say that, unfortunately, this document appears to put us back to the position in which we were before.
The Prime Minister said that we had escaped from the straitjacket. Here he is putting us back into it. What the country has suffered from more than anything else over the past 15 years is continuous doses of sound Conservative finance, and this is a prescription for another dose.
That is the situation. We therefore believe that it is essential to make our view clear to the Government, and to let them know what we think of the commitments into which they have entered in this document. We believe that this is not necessary. Many hon. Members who have stated their views to the House on many occasions over the years have presented an alternative policy to the one prescribed by the Government. We believe that it is not necessary for the Government to show their obeisance before what the bankers require. There is a whole combination of measures which can be devised and employed to enable this country to secure swift economic independence. This is what we want to secure, and when we see the indignities to which we are being subjected, we want to secure it all the more swiftly.
We say that the way to do it is to break out of the conventional framework of the last 15 to 20 years, the framework of a crushing military burden, the frame-work of allegiance to laissez faire economics and the framework of an acceptance of terrifyingly orthodox financial policies. Many of us hoped that the Government's decision at last to accept devaluation was a sign that they were beginning to move towards these fresh policies. We hoped that they would move faster in that direction, but the publication of the Letter of Intent showed that there were
1152
still those who were wedded to the old policies. And it was not necessary for us to accept such dictates. This country is extremely rich with great productive resources and inventive genius, and if the Government would only plan to use them, would only plan to mobilise our resources, we would not have to borrow a penny from moneylenders. We would not have to borrow from those who are seeking to impose on us policies which have led us to such difficulty and disaster.
In the view of many of us, this document is an ignominious letter which should never have been signed by a member of a British Cabinet, and should never have been despatched by a British Labour Government. Therefore, many of us will work for policies and for a Government which can save us from these humiliations.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I have taken part in many debates together. We have never succeeded in agreeing on the fundamentals of any problem. We have quite often agreed about the conduct of the Government, and I profoundly agree with the hon. Gentleman that for some wholly incomprehensible reasons Ministers have been guilty of trying to deceive the House.
The hon. Gentleman quoted what the Prime Minister said at col. 1335. He said much the same at col. 1334. I defy anybody to read those statements and not to draw the firm conclusion that the Prime Minister was not going to take a loan with any strings or conditions attached to it, and that is certainly what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite thought he meant.
I thought that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer went even further in the key answer which he gave to the Leader of the Liberal Party during his statement on the Letter of Intent. The Leader of the Liberal Party asked whether the Chancellor's freedom of manceuvre in his Budget would be affected, and the right hon. Gentleman gave the firm answer that it would not.
How can anyone say that freedom of manceuvre will not be affected when a promise has been made that we will not borrow more than £1,000 million, and when we have promised to show the

1153
Budget to Mr. Schweitzer before introducing Why, in the name of God, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not read the heards of agreement, or say that every report in the Press was true? To tell a lib when one is bound to be found out within 10 minutes is pathetic—childish.
I will not pursue the Prime Minister's part in all this. To accuse the Prime Minister of a lack of truthfulness is surely a work of supererogation. He might think, that, with his record, the only way to tell the British public that he is going to accept a loan with strings is to deny it. The matter is not worth pursuing. I think that a lot depends on the Chancellor. The last hope of getting things right depends on the new Chancellor, and he cannot afford to show a lack of candour.
There has been no general revival of confidence in the £ since devaluation. This was true before the latest rail strike. There has been no real revival, and I think that people's minds are being confused to a certain extent because so many financial commentators were in favour of devaluation, and therefore when it came they felt it necessary to have a celebration and to talk about the British economic miracle, and so on, but they have not talked about some of the senior aspects of devaluation, which are of desperate importance.
One is the way in which this adds to our indebtedness. A simple way to illustrate this is to consider what has happened about the American loan which was negotiated by Lord Keynes under an earlier Labour Government. We borrowed £931 million from America. We have been repaying it, with only three breaks, for 20 years. As a result of two Labour Government devaluations, instead of being less than £931 million, it now amounts to £1,287 million, finally payable in the year 2005, and, therefore, everyone in the House will spend the rest of his working life paying off that loan.
There is, next, the effect on sterling balances. I think that the present Home Secretary was right, in his resignation letter, to put the fact that he had to break faith with the holders of these sterling balances as his real reason for going. We have assured these people again and again that we would never devalue. They
1154
did not altogether believe it. Many have started pulling back, and they do not feel any confidence now.
What the effect on them will be of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade I hardly like to think, because he said that the holders of sterling balances had no reason to complain because they had been getting interest on their money. This will put them into a cold fury, and if this starts breaking up the sterling area, or is the death agony of it, it will wash away any other efforts that we can make.
Lastly, there is the question of our reserves. Today, we saw an increase in our reserves, but what do they really amount to? The only figures which we know are those of the money from the I.M.F. and the Swiss loan, but in addition to these there are enormous sums from foreign central banks. On top of that, for many months now we have been putting off the evil day by operating in the forward market. This means that we say to people, "All right, we will give you dollars for your sterling, but not just yet. We will do this in three months', six months', or a year's time ". The Government have never been willing to disclose the sums involved, but I believe that they are large.
At the height of the crises in 1966 we had borrowed more than our total visible reserves. I can believe that that is the case now, and, therefore—and this has to be faced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite—we are in a pretty tight corner. The Chancellor cannot afford to show a lack of candour. One can lead the people of this country in difficult times, but to do so one must tell them the truth. The Chancellor will have to do a lot of difficult and unpleasant things, far more difficult and far more unpleasant than they need have been if they had been done in time, and far more difficult and unpleasant because the former Chancellor's consumer boom is now under way, which makes the situation far more complex and difficult.
We know we can do it, and that the Chancellor could do it, but will he? I do not know. I think that we must all, in our own interests, pray that he will succeed. The real difficulty about Labour Governments is that they do not get out of financial crises. In 1931, they split. In 1947, they broke the conditions

1155
under which we received the American loan, and spent the money. In 1949, there was a 40 per cent. devaluation, and in 1951 they ran for it. This crisis has been going on and intensifying for three years.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get out of these difficulties he must show candour, courage and political strength. It he can show them, well and good. If he cannot, he had better run for it now.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Joel Barnett: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made a number of good points, but I cannot help feeling that, while one could understand and appreciate what prompted them, to read into the Letter of Intent the sort of indignity which he read into it and to say that our freedom of manoeuvre, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), is being restricted is to be blind to the situation. Our freedom of manoeuvre is restricted not by the Letter of Intent, but by our financial and economic situation. I therefore cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend had more an emotive point than a practical one.
The far more valid and more important point for the House to consider is that if we do not improve our balance of payments situation we will need to consult many more people than simply the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.
There are two issues facing us: whether we should take the loan and, if we take the loan, whether we should have accepted the strings and conditions attached. The first poses the question whether there was an alternative to taking the loan. In my view, once we had accepted a 14·3 per cent. devaluation, rather than a bigger devaluation something else was needed. I wanted a rather bigger devaluation, but because of the necessity and the importance of getting international agreement, we could not go further than the 14·3 per cent. It was, therefore, necessary to take other action.
Some of my hon. Friends suggest that there was an alternative, for instance, to reduce our defence expenditure. I have made it clear in the House that I agree
1156
with them entirely about cutting massively and speedily our defence expenditure, but we should be deluding ourselves if we imagine that in the immediate 12 vital months we could make these massive and speedy defence cuts. We cannot do it and we must face the immediate prospect before us.
The other alternative which my hon. Friends put forward is to sell some of our private portfolio investments. I have said before in an economic debate that this is not an answer to our problems. It is like a company in serious and fundamental difficulties bringing in an influx of new capital without dealing with the fundamental problem. The confidence factor in whether or not that company or, as in this case the country, intended to solve its fundamental problems would not be dealt with. That is the important point which is not considered—and there are many others. Dealing with the problem by selling off our private portfolio would not deal with the need to switch our resources from home consumption to exports. So it must be clear that we need some strengthening of our resources in addition to the 14·3 per cent. devaluation, and I do not feel that the suggestions of my hon. Friends are realistic alternatives to the proposal to take the standby loan.
Were there any alternatives to the strings and conditions? It is, incidentally, a quibble as to who attached the strings. Any responsible person borrowing money will attach his own strings—the string of wanting to be able to repay the loan. It is absurd to quibble or argue about who attached the strings or conditions. But the strings and conditions referred to in cols. 651–2 of HANSARD for 30th November will be needed in order to achieve the switch in resources which we need, and they would have been needed whether we signed the letter of intent or not. It is silly and irrelevant to argue whether it is "deflation".
Mr. Sidney Silverman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in last Monday's debate the President of the Board of Trade said very clearly that devaluation was not equivalent to deflation? Having persuaded me on that occasion, what does he expect me to do today?
Mr. Barnett: What my right hon. Friend said, rightly, was that there was no net deflation in this package, because while we must all hope that there will be a deflation in home consumption there will be an increase in export demand and there will thus be no net deflation. One can argue about whether it is or is not deflationary. I am not very concerned about that. This is a quibble about words. But I do not know any other methods than the ones suggested to switch from home consumption to achieve the level of exports which we need. If any hon. Member can show me another way, whether by selling portfolio investment or otherwise, whereby we can get this switch, I will be glad to listen to him, but I do not know that one exists.
By far the most serious point is that if we do not deal with the current financial and economic situation in this way we could be faced in a short time with a most serious situation, because there is already talk among irresponsible people about the situation in Britain. If irresponsible rumours of that sort arose again, there would be a disruption of the world monetary system which would be harmful not only to Britain, but to the trading position of the world.
If these measures are to be called deflation with strings and conditions—call them what one will—whether or not they were put in a Letter of Intent, they were necessary. So, because I believe that the package will give us the growth and full employment which we desperately need, I support this package and ask my hon. Friends to do the same.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is the Liberal view that, so that the necessary devaluation might be carried out with a reasonable chance of success, the stand-by loan facilities were necessary, and that, to obtain those facilities, the Letter of Intent was also necessary and in no way surprising. We regard the surprise expressed in some quarters of the House as somewhat naïve. Where we part company with the Government is that the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund has been used as the main statement of intent to this country. This, we think, is quite inadequate.
1158
I confine myself to two aspects. The syrup applied to the European bankers is being used as a diet for the people of this country in respect of incomes policy. I draw attention to paragraph 12 of the Letter of Intent. The crucial question of how far wage increases for the low-paid are permissible in our present circumstances is dodged in the curious and, to me, almost meaningless sentence:
"There is no criterion for pay increases related to changes in the cost of living."
I hope that those with the invidious job of dealing with requests for wage increases will hear from the Chancellor tonight what that sentence means. Does it mean that there can now be wage changes related to the cost of living, but that the Government are not laying down criteria by which to judge them, or is it intended to mean, what it does not say, that there are to be no changes of wage in respect of changes in the cost of living?
If that is so, we are back to the desperately weak contradiction which has undermined the whole Government incomes policy since July, 1966, namely, the total failure to define the low-paid. The Command Paper of 30th June, 1967, which is freely quoted, naturally, in the Letter of Intent, brings us back to an equally meaningless proviso. One of its four provisions for wage increases, which is now current Government gospel, was:
"… where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living."
For 90 per cent. of our population there is "general recognition" that they do not have "a reasonable standard of living". Very few of us consider that we have, granted the opportunities and possibilities of the 1960s.
This also wholly dodged the admittedly awkward question of defining the low-paid who must have special consideration, even during a national emergency. I do not pretend that it is easy, but until the Government insist on a definition, even if a fairly harsh one, they will not get industry, by which I mean unions and employers, to "carry the can" for them by refusing wage increases. At the moment, those in industry who are being asked by the Government to refuse wage claims are being

1159
asked to "carry a can" full of acid and of holes.
I turn to the absence of any measures to counteract the enormous and, since 1949, unprecedented increase in protection of the home manufacturer which devaluation automatically gives. If someone is asked to bring himself to the peak of physical condition to run a marathon race, one does not give him a Christmas present of a feather pillow; yet this is exactly what devaluation inevitably brings, unless there are countervailing measures.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said in the devaluation debate, we would like—we have said so since 1964—devaluation accompanied by large cuts in Customs tariffs. One obvious example is the British-made motor car. What will happen now? The steel from which it is made—many motor manufacturers have threatened British steel makers with the use of imported steel because of its alleged quality—the rubber tyres, even the sparking plugs, will all be protected from healthy foreign competition, let alone the assembled vehicle.
Neither Liberals nor anyone else want this country to engage in a sudden spree of buying foreign. What we want is the lazy, the inefficient and the lackadaisical home manufacturer to be subject to the deterrent of available foreign corn petition. That is just what devaluation removes unless we are to hear from the Government tonight of some measures to counteract the automatic effects of devaluation with a sharp decrease in certain strategic tariffs. Unless we can hear that the placebo which has, naturally, had to be given to foreign bankers will not be used also as the main diet for the British population, we shall feel bound to oppose the Government on this issue.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: There was one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Richard Wainwright) with which I agree, and that is his reference to the naivety of some of my hon. Friends in supposing that one could obtain very large loans with no indication of how one proposed to repay them. A letter of intent in which one says how one proposes to repay is not
1160
the same as attaching conditions to the loans.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), for instance, asks his bank manager for a loan the latter may ask him how he intends to repay it. My hon. Friend may tell him of his very large earnings through writing for the Evening Standard and other journals. But the bank manager does not say, "Unless you do the following things, I shall not give you the loan." He would be well satisfied with my hon. Friend's good faith and intentions. That is the argument.
What distresses me about my hon. Friend is that he is so sincere and so anxious for the Labour Government to succeed. I know him well and love him dearly—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Wyatt: Well, I do, and hon. Members opposite are not going to stop me.
By his Motion this afternoon, my hon. Friend is doing the one thing which he should know is fatal to the Labour cause. He is making the country feel that we are not fit to govern. It is he, above all, who is bringing up the ghost of 1931 and the bankers' ramp and all that kind of damned nonsense, making people feel that the Government have lost control of their own destiny when they have not.
If the Letter of Intent had not been written, it jolly well should have been, because one must tell anyone from whom one is borrowing money how one proposes to make the repayments. One cannot go on having loans without end as this country has been doing without that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale speaks of these foreign bankers as if they were some kind of criminal conspiracy—
Mr. Russell Kerr: That is right.
Mr. Wyatt: "That is right", says another hon. Gentleman down there. This is the International Monetary Fund, a world organisation, which is one of the few co-operative and constructive financial acts which have occurred since the Second World War. We are trying to get a co-operative approach among the nations towards helping each other out of their financial difficulties. This is not

1161
some kind of plot to bring down British Socialism. The Letter of Intent does not go half far enough if Britain is to restore confidence in her ability to maintain the £, even at the new level.
Everybody knows that in one way or another—I will detail some of them—we have been living above our income—
Mr. James Dickens: Rubbish.
Mr. Wyatt: It cannot be rubbish, because—
Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the three years 1964–66 inclusive, the total deficit on balance of payments was £1,293 million, that is, rather less than our total outgoings on the foreign exchange costs of overseas military spending, plus the net outflow of private capital to advanced industrial countries? How, then, are we living beyond our means?
Mr. Wyatt: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was one of the first to point out this fact to him—
Mr. Dickens: Even for my hon. Friend, that is utterly ludicrous.
Mr. Wyatt: It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and myself and some others on the so-called Right wing of the Labour Party who converted the so-called Left wing of the party to the proposition that one of the fundamental difficulties in our balance of payments is that we spend far too much on overseas military expenditure. Of course, we all know that we are living above our means in many different ways. My hon. Friend referred to one of them.
The whole of this proposition is a matter of confidence. Whether we like it or not, 30 per cent. of the world does its trade in pounds and there are about £3,000 million worth of sterling balances deposited in this country. The owners of those deposits are entitled to draw them out at any moment and convert them into any foreign currency. So, we are in a fix, and if, at any moment, people abroad believe that we cannot sustain the value of the £ in its present position, obviously, they will make the best arrangement they can for themselves, their clients and their
1162
countries to protect themselves against such an eventuality.
The whole matter is one of confidence and sometimes on a very narrow margin. The Letter of Intent is designed to restore confidence among the International Monetary Fund and other bankers so that we do not have another run on the £—
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wyatt: I will not give way again. The last intervention which I allowed was not very fruitful, and only underlined the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) had just come to a conclusion to which I came many years ago.
The reason that I say that the Letter of Intent does not go far enough is that everyone, whether in the City of London or in overseas capitals knows that the intention to spend £200 million a year less in Government expenditure is a very bad joke, because it is not a reduction in the amount which will be spent next year as against this year, but only a reduction in an intention to spend a great deal more next year than this. So there will be no reduction in Government spending next year at all, but a vast increase, quite apart from the Letter of Intent. My hon. Friends must face the fact that, until we start operating this country on sensible lines, people abroad will not have confidence in us.
The abolition of prescription charges was the most expensive memorial ever made to any one man. I refer to the late Aneurin Bevan. We all know that the reason we now spend as a Government £40 million a year on prescriptions which we were not spending before is because of the argument which Aneurin Bevan had in 1951 with Hugh Gaitskell about teeth and spectacles. This is no way in which to run a country. Everyone in the country knows that it was not unreasonable to ask people to pay 2s. for a prescription—
Mr. Orme: Who says so?
Mr. Wyatt: Well, everybody with any sense knows—[Interruption.] I have talked to many workers about it. My hon. Friend does not have a prerogative in talking to workers. I even employ

1163
workers. What is more, we have to make a profit, which is more than my hon. Friend does. Everybody knows that the previous arrangement, by which those who needed it were able to get prescriptions free, worked perfectly adequately.
One such act by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the abolition of free prescriptions, would instantly restore confidence in the £—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Of course it would. I will take another instance. If my hon. Friend can contain himself for a moment, I will come to something which he will like much more. He cannot have only the sugar; I will give him the unpleasant things first and then I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me in a moment.
I turn now to family allowances. As from next April, we propose to add to that bill £124 million in a year. What on earth for? It will not to any great extent benefit the half or three-quarters of a million children who are really in need. If hon. Members want to know, I am to get an increase in family allowances and I damned well do not need it. This is utterly absurd, and the country knows it.
It would be simple for my right hon. Friend to devise a scheme by which the really needy got more than they will get, and thereby save about £80 million a year straight away. By these two means—by dealing with family allowances and prescription charges—we could net about £120 million a year more in savings, which would convince the world that the Labour Government in Britain were determined to do something to put our spending right.
In the Letter of Intent there should not merely be wishy-washy references to pious hopes about wages, but a clear intention to have legislation again to make certain that wages are not allowed to rise unless there is a corresponding and genuine increase in productivity.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Wyatt: I assure my hon Friends that interruptions, entertaining though they may be, merely prolong my discourse.
Unless we see to it, not merely by pious hopes, but by real action, that wages do
1164
not rise while prices rise—and prices will rise far more than the Government have forecast—we will wipe out within a few months the whole advantage of devaluation and find ourselves back where we started. What frightens me about the Letter of Intent is that it contains no intention on the part of the Government to legislate to make sure of compulsory wage restraint.
It is absolutely useless to pretend that George Woodcock, amiable fellow though he is, will be able to dissuade unions from having vast wage increases; and the moment prices begin to rise, the pressure on the Government will be insupportable. They will have to give in unless they have legislation to prevent them from doing so.
At the same time, I agree that the prices side of the Prices and Incomes Board should be strengthened. It should be remembered, however, that it is far stronger on prices than it is on wages because price increases are genuinely held up for a longish period before they are agreed by the Board, whereas wage increases can be retrospective, so that there is no real effect on wage increases at all.
Mr. Orme: Terrible.
Mr. Wyatt: I am pleased that my hon. Friend considers that this is a terrible speech. It means that at last he is having some of the ghastly facts which face his country placed before him.
Unless the Labour Party—which my hon. Friends and I all love—is prepared to face up to the realities of the present situation, and realise that devaluation is not a pipe dream which will take us over the hump, we will be out of office for 30 years. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably the last hope that the Labour Party has for a generation. To start his period of office off by bully-ragging him is the most extraordinary way of supporting the Labour Government—particularly when we are faced with such grave difficulties.
I turn to a topic of which some of my hon. Friends will approve. I simply cannot understand how it is that, three years after taking office, a Labour Government are still spending about £570 million a year, in devaluation prices, in Government expenditure overseas compared with a total expenditure by the Government overseas of £16 million in

1165
1938. This is one of the most extraordinary failures to face up to the facts in the history of politics.
The Government have said that they propose to bring back our troops east of Suez in 1975 or thereabouts. Since they have made that announcement, the troops there are now serving no good purpose. Why not withdraw them now? What would be the difference over our long history between withdrawing them in 1975 or in 1970? The difference is that there would be an enormous increase in confidence in the £ throughout the world and an enormous increase in our belief that we intend to live within our means. We could easily withdraw our troops in two years' time. We disbanded the entire Indian Empire within six months. We could certainly do the same in Singapore, Malaysia, and so on. I would say the same for our troops outside Europe. What are we doing with troops in Libya, Cyprus and Bahrein? They do nothing but make a focus of discontent against us.
Exactly the same situation existed in Persia, where we tried, at the time of Abadan and Mossadeq, to achieve our aims by force. From having 100 per cent. of the oil concession we have only 25 per cent.—because our troops were there. There can be no economy unless there is common sense. We should take our troops out and draw back to something approaching the £16 million a year that we spent in 1938, at post-1967 devaluation prices.
We are spending in overseas aid—by way of gifts, grants and loans—£207 million a year, but we do not have the money. We are borrowing from the gentlemen in Zurich to dish out to other countries. We are also spending £90 million a year more than world market prices for our food to help the underdeveloped countries. This is crazy for a country which has no money to undertake these responsibilities. We have the instinctive gestures of the rich man and no money to support them.
The Letter of Intent does not go far enough. I congratulate the Government on having had the good sense to write it in the first place, but it is a pity that it has not gone further, because Great Britain must cut back or she will not survive.
1166
One of the features of post-war politics has been that every time the country has been asked to accept temporary inconveniences to earn ourselves a stable future, it has revolted against it, encouraged by whoever happened to be in opposition at the time. Does the Leader of the Opposition ever say what he knows to be true; that only a compulsory wage freeze can possibly pull us through? He tells the electors, "Vote for us and you will have an easy ride". It is always the same.
Mr. Edward Heath: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the last General Election he will find that I told the electorate exactly the opposite. I said that a hard ride was the only way to bring us through. In any case, I did not not agree with the compulsory wages and incomes freeze.
Mr. Wyatt: Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not say so. That is because he does not think that his party would ever get elected if he said so.
The whole country is bedevilled by this business of pitting ourselves against each other, always pretending that we will provide a mysterious extra very high standard of living without working for it. We must cut back.
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer is our last chance; and this is not merely the last chance for the Labour Party—[Interruption.] I believe that to be true, because if he fails, and we have another devaluation, as many knowledgeable people think we shall have, within another 18 months—
Mr. Robert Maxwell: Rubbish.
Mr. Wyatt: It is no good pretending that they do not believe this. They do not believe that the Government are tough enough to take the right measures. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer fails, I fear that the Labour Party will be out of office for 30 years.
On the other hand, if the Chancellor does the unpopular but right things, then we can win the next election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as well as saving Britain, which is even more important. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that nothing is more important than

1167
winning an election. I believe that saving the country is far more important.
At present, the Chancellor is in a unique position. For a few months he can be as tough as he thinks is properly right and the Cabinet must bend to his will. The Cabinet could not possibly allow him to resign. The resignation of a new Chancellor within two or three months would be more than even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could stand.
Thus, the Chancellor finds himself in the extraordinary position of having almost absolute power. It is utterly wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—and I still love him dearly—to discourage my right hon. Friend from doing the tough and right things. The Chancellor must not be given to feel that half the party is against him when the whole party must be behind him, because he will have some unpleasant things to do if we are to succeed. We must fortify him and say, "We do not care how unpopular are the things you do in the next year or so, because we appreciate that you must do them".
I urge my hon. Friends not to try to make my right hon. Friend water down the things that he must do to save the country. Give him a chance.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. John Smith: I thought that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were mostly in favour of devaluation. They must recognise that devaluation could not have been successfully carried out without some such arrangement as the one we are discussing. I thought that the devaluers were having some sort of honeymoon with the Prime Minister; and whoever heard of a honeymoon without strings?
The party opposite has got us into real trouble; and then, miraculously, someone turns up who is willing to bail them out—and then hon. Gentlemen opposite are outraged at the thought of telling that someone what it is proposed to do with the money. It is usual, when asking a friend to guarantee one's over-draft, to give him some idea of why, and even some idea of how, one hopes finally to release him from the guarantee.
1168
Indeed, to do so is a help; setting things on paper clears the head.
The I.M.F. is a friend, not a malevolent power bent on enslaving us. Despite the pejorative talk of some hon. Members about foreign bankers, the concern of the I.M.F. is that the world shall prosper, and the world includes us, and our ability to pay for imports from the world.
How can we possibly recover the confidence, let alone the respect, of the world if we keep behaving as if this were fairyland, as if all gold were fairy gold to be had simply for the wishing; and indeed as if this country were a fairyland of the type in the Norse Sagas, bent on self-destruction, as we are—attacking each other at a moment like this, attacking the business community which alone can get us out of our troubles? All internal debate on these topics is damaging to us abroad—
Mr. Maxwell rose—
Mr. Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. In any case, this is a debate, not an interview.
Mr. Maxwell rose—
Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) should try to behave himself.
Mr. Smith: We need to show the utmost solidarity of purpose to the world if we are to get out of our difficulties. Therefore, although this is a Labour document, I say that the Letter of Intent is unexceptionable. It contains a little claptrap about internal Government borrowing, about the "sale of debt to the non-bank public", but there is not much harm in that. Apart from that, there are in it a few facts, some decisions, some hopes, and a ritual concession to the "Furies" in paragraph 3. There are only three references to consultation, two of which are really part of the same reference; and this consultation is of a sort which can be none other than of great help to us. I am sorry that the Government's policies obliged the former Chancellor to write this letter, but, reduced to it as he was, I congratulate him on its form and on its content.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I shall take the liberty of ignoring the humorous

1169
contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), because we have very little time and this is a serious debate. That being so, one must not speak for too long. My hon. Friend will be on record for what he said about prescription charges and other policies that no doubt will find wide support among his colleagues in the Labour movement in the House and outside it. I leave him to deal with members of the party when they discuss his remarks with him in the future. I am more concerned with the policies of the Government and of the Opposition, and I want, first, to turn to the purpose of the debate.
The decision that the House has taken, and the policies that are alluded to in the Letter of Intent, will predetermine a great deal of legislation that will be introduced to the House by the Government. It may also predetermine some of the legislation the Government had intended to bring to the House, but may now decide not to bring to the House. There will, therefore, be very important positive and negative legislative consequences flowing from the Letter of Intent, and we would be failing in our duty to the House if we did not, at the earliest opportunity, examine the position.
I always listen with respect to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), but I fail to understand him when he reproaches us for even discussing these matters. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to sustain the doctrine that any discussion of matters that will affect the future of every citizen of the United Kingdom is damaging and should not take place, I doubt whether he will take his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) with him in that proposition. However, I leave him to argue it out with his hon. and right hon. Friends.
We have to consider the policy that will he pursued by the Government, and the influence that the discussions that have taken place in the last fortnight will have on that policy. Therefore, the first proposition I put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he must give a careful first opinion to the House and to the country on what these undertakings mean and how they will influence his future policy.
That does not only involve, as has been said, a future social services budget and
1170
legislation for looking after those hardest hit by the increase in the cost of living consequential on devaluation: it involves the whole strategy of the Government's economic policy. One does not have to be so blind to the economic facts of life as has been suggested in some speeches about the release of economic resources in order to increase the export drive. We can agree that there must be a release somewhere—that can be appreciated, and is elementary economics—without necessarily supporting the policies to which the Government seem to have committed themselves in the Letter of Intent.
I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) is not in the Chamber at the moment, because he spoke with such superiority, as though a new Keynes was addressing us on matters of economics. He was for a short time a student of mine at the College of the Rhine Army in days gone by, but I must say that I never taught him economics, only politics. He was speaking today on economics, so I do not accept any responsibility for what he said.
The importance of the point at issue is that if we have a position in which we wish to release resources from some sectors and make them available for the purpose of increasing the volume of our exports, we must decide where we shall start. Here, the policy of the Opposition comes very much into prominence. For some considerable time the Opposition have put forward a number of policies. They have urged the Government to cut public expenditure. This has nothing to do with the Letter of Intent. It would be wrong to say that the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends had to wait for what M. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer was saying in order to urge certain policies on the Government. They were urging conventional policies—Tory policies and the policies of the City of London—on the Government long before the negotiations started.
The Opposition demanded cuts in public expenditure, but it was difficult to discover from them where, in particular, the cuts ought to be. However, in other times they have said in rather more detail that we should cut the social services, and that we are spending too much on local authority house building.

1171
The Opposition have put forward a whole series of proposals, but those proposals have been rejected time and again, first by the electorate and then by the House. The Government have been sustained by large majorities in the rejection of those policies.
I want now to turn to what I, at any rate, consider to be the most important aspect of this debate. It is that some of those self-same policies are now reappearing in the suggestions and conditions laid down by the international banking fraternity, and are in process of being imposed on the Government. This means that we have reached a position in which it seems virtually impossible for a social democratic Government, elected by a large majority—and past experience has shown it to be the case in other European countries—to pursue their policies successfully.
This has nothing to do with plots. It is not a deliberate plot. I do not accuse any right hon. Gentlemen opposite of having engaged in plots—I make that clear. But the economic philosophy represented on the Conservative benches is the philosophy that dominates the opinions of those people with whom our Government have to negotiate when discussing a standby credit, or any other credit. It therefore means that policies thrown out by this House are reimposed on the electorate by outside bodies. This is one of the most serious constitutional aspects we have to face in this debate. The consequence is that, whatever the electorate may say, even if the party opposite is defeated it always governs. Its principles are imposed on the Government even when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a minority in this House.
Let us examine the general proposition against the background of some of the policies urged on us. We do not want to spend too much time on what are and what are not conditions. Let us take it as read that everyone knows that before a standby credit is agreed a mission arrives from the I.M.F. and negotiations take place between its representatives and those of the Government.
But let us also remember—and here, again, I take issue with the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westmins-
1172
ter—that a large part of the money to he filtered into the funds of the I.M.F. has to be guaranteed by a number of very powerful central bankers—as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I do not seek to teach him elementary economics, but that fact was absent from his speech. When the decision was being taken in these committee meetings that the money should be supplied to the I.M.F. by these banks, British internal economic policy was discussed in minute detail. I have not time in this debate to give a full briefing on those discussions, but I am glad to see that I carry with me the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
Let us now examine some of the points that were then discussed. One of the most important statements made by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend who has just resigned office as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last fortnight was the hope—and to some it sounded more like an assurance than a hope—that we shall now be moving forward to an annual growth rate of 5½ to 6½ per cent. This is of decisive importance to the future of the country.
That proposition was bitterly attacked in one of these committee meetings. It was said: "This is illusory. It would be wrong if you could achieve it. You should not attempt to achieve it. There ought not to be an increase of 5½ per cent. or 6½ per cent." If that policy is now accepted we shall find ourselves in a position in which, for reasons that are not lodged in the judgment of our own Government but for reasons having to do with policies urged on us by bodies outside, we shall not go all out to achieve the increase in economic growth that the Prime Minister himself accepted in the House and the country. This has nothing to do with being able to fulfil what we say, or with being particularly inclined to be optimistic in our forecasts.
I wish that hon. and right hon. Members opposite would get away from their obsession about the Prime Minister as a personality for this three hours of debate. This is something which any Prime Minister and any Government might have to face, and it is well-known by right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. If we accept the framework of allowing conditions to be imposed because we want a standby credit, it may be that we shall be put into such a tight position

1173
that our general expectations are called into question. I fear that the Government find themselves in that position at present.
I move on to another item which was discussed. There was a bitter attack on the Government's housing programme. The Financial Times this morning said that here are the places where cuts can take place and that as long as the Government do not decide on a very large cut in housing programme they do not propose to use the opportunities of devaluation at once. Once we have decided to release capital resources for export purposes we have to make that choice. Here we go to something on which the Opposition are always silent—our large defence budget and spending, not only overseas but at home. I am told that 800 British firms are engaged upon the production of Polaris.
If the problem is a technical one of releasing resources from one type of production in order to have more resources for export production, this is a case in point. Are we to say that this is the sacred cow of defence expenditure and, apart from the minor paring down which the Government have allowed, defence must never be touched, that we must depress our policy of economic growth and accept a large cut in the standard of living of working people but we must not touch nuclear weapons in order to relieve resources?
I speak not as a pacifist. It is well known that I have friends who are pacifists. I respect their position although I am not one, but if it is a question of having to make decisions, the Government have no right to say that we cannot look at the nuclear programme again, that it must go forward and employ the resources it is employing at present no matter what we have to do about increasing exports.
Sir Stephen McAdden: Will the hon. Member—
Mr. Mendelson: I do not think that it would be fair for me to give way, as other h Dn. Members want to take part in the debate.
The Letter of Intent gives very considerabi e power to the Managing Director of the International Fund. I welcomed the decision to announce the contents of
1174
the letter and to publish it. I also welcomed the decision of the Government at this early opportunity to see to it that we at any rate retain the best possible position for devaluation. The judgment of the Government in these matters has the support of the House. What I do not accept is the provision in paragraph 16 of the Letter of Intent which said:
"If, however, present policies should turn out to be inadequate, the Government is firmly determined to take such further measures as may be necessary to achieve these goals. If, in the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom or the Managing Director of the Fund, the policies are not producing the desired improvement …"
This gives equal status to the managing director of the Fund with the views of Her Majesty's Government. It is no good quibbling about what happens in these negotiations. I heard it said when I raised this point with a member of the Government, "Yes, we shall reserve our position to make our decision at the time". That is the kind of objection made about trade unions, that they consult and then take their own decision. This, surely, is not in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. It means that the managing director is given equal status in making decisions on Government policy with the Government themselves. This is an intolerable position. Many of us must take the earliest opportunity of showing the country that we do not accept it. There is no escape from that.
I move to what I think might be an alternative policy. We have been charged by hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite with putting forward this critique of Government policy and of commitments entered into without suggesting alternatives. It is, therefore, my bounden duty, as the second speaker for this proposition, to point out the alternatives. There are very serious and very important alternatives. It would have been quite possible in this situation for the Government to say, "No, we do not accept some of these conditions because we do not agree with them". It must be remembered that in the situation in which negotiations take place people are always so eager to describe the weaknesses of the Government. They seemed to go out of their way to point out the weaknesses in which we found ourselves, but let it be remembered that in that fortnight there was a great

1175
deal of heart-searching going on in Washington.
We were in a fairly strong position and the Treasury in Washington was most anxious that an agreement should be come to with the British Government because the position of the dollar was directly involved. We should have pursued that position. There would not have been a breakdown of the negotiations. The Fund had much interest in seeing and America was pressing it to see that agreement with the British Government was achieved. We ought to have mobilised in that situation, and we ought to mobilise now, a very large part of the dollar portfolio. This has nothing to do with confiscation. It is quite possible to mobilise it as a help to our reserves.
Many people are coming to this view in many different quarters. I shall quote a couple of sentences from a pamphlet published by Michael Shanks, who used to be one of the most prominent journalists on the Sunday Times, an organ not associated with my views. He said:
"The dollar portfolio consists of private British holdings of dollar securities and assets worth about 3¼ billion more than our official reserves. If these were incorporated in the official dollar reserves our financial position would not only look a great deal better, but we would have more reserves available to meet sudden runs on the bank as it were Our credibility as a world banker would look much better."
Whether we accept the argument or not, this is a dismissal of the suggestion hitherto made. That has gone out by the window and now many experts are seriously considering this possibility. We should decide here and now on very large cuts in military expenditure overseas and at home. If the Government are not earnest in this, they have no right to ask us to support the legislation which will flow from the commitments they have entered into.
If it is to be argued that no serious cuts in defence expenditure are possible, they have no right to say, "We cannot do as much as we wanted to in the social services and in helping those who have been hard hit by the corresponding increased cost of devaluation". They have no right to say, "You must accept hard times, but we cannot seriously cut our defence expenditure".
1176
This is at stake in this debate. As I have already said, constitutionally this is the most important subject we could discuss. When the legislation which will flow from these commitments comes before the House, and when the denials of things the Government wanted to do are debated in the House, we would have no right to say to the Government then, "You ought not to do it and we do not wish to support it", if we had remained silent today and had not taken this early opportunity to make clear our point of view on the disastrous consequences of some of the policies involved in our commitments in the Letter of Intent.
5.20 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne: I have promised to speak for only five minutes, not for 20 minutes, as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) did.
I want to make only a few brief points. First, I believe that the Government stand condemned in the country for trying to deceive the nation with half-truths. Secondly, the Prime Minister spoke only a half-truth when he said:
"it was the international monetary community itself which came forward with facilities"—
of loan, whereas the Letter of Intent says this:
"The Government therefore requests a standby of 1.4 billion dollars".
Thirdly, the Prime Minister said only half the truth when he said:
"The loans from the central banks have no strings".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1335.]
whereas the Letter of Intent promises a review in February, July and November and says:
"If, in the opinion of the … Managing Director of the Fund, the policies are not producing the desired improvements in the balance of payments, the Government … will consult with the Fund".
This means that the international bankers, through the Managing Director of the Fund, will decide our economic destiny.
Fourthly, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am glad that he is here, so that I can say this to him, I hope not unfairly—spoke only half the truth when he said this:
"the Fund has not attached conditions to this credit."

1177
The Letter of Intent is one mass of conditions. For example paragraph 7 promises
"a reduction of home demand by about £750 million to £800 million below what would otherwise have been the case."
Surely that cut of £700 million to £800 million a year in home consumption is a savage enough condition.
Fifthly, if this £800 million a year is to be transferred from home consumption to exports, and if there is no real increase in national productivity, it is inescapable that our standard of living will have to be reduced by that £800 million a year.
Sixthly, even if this £800 million a year of resources are transferred from the home market to exports, the Government ca mot guarantee that they will be sold at a profit. To give them away in foreign markets below cost would impoverish the nation still further.
Seventhly, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer also said this:
"this standby credit should in no way be a subsidy to our standard of living in this country, either now or in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th November, 1967; Vol. 755, cc. 743–47.]
I deeply regret that the new Chancellor has failed to make his supporters inside and outside the House, especially those below the Gangway, believe this horrid truth.
Lastly, I believe that the Prime Minister is guilty of trying to deceive the nation by keeping silent on the most important issue. Paragraph 12 of the Letter of Intent says this:
"There is no criterion for pay increases related to changes in the cost of living."
In simple language, that means that there must be a long and savage wage freeze, despite a sharp rise in the cost of living. This is what the Government have accepted. The Prime Minister has funked telling the nation quite clearly that this is the price that this loan will impose upon the nation. Not one person in 10 million outside the House realises it and not more than one in 100 below the Gangway will accept it.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. R. B. Cant: We have had a great deal of eloquence this afternoon. Much of it has had considerable constitutional and moral overtones. I want to address my-
1178
self to the very narrow thesis whether or not the Letter of Intent, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), imposes intolerable shackles on the British economy.
I do not want to deal, first, as I might have done, with the question whether we needed a standby credit. My hon. Friend gave us an excellent exposition of why this is necessary to back up devaluation. I do not want to go into the past and explain that I have never been one who has been enthusiastic about devaluation, because I think that its repercussions are far more complex than is appreciated by most hon. Members.
What surprises me is the political immaturity which allows not only hon. Members opposite, but also quite a number of my hon. Friends, to believe that there could be a standby loan of this magnitude without conditions. This is a perfectly normal rule-book procedure to anybody who knows the constitution of the International Monetary Fund. Why it should take people unawares surprises me. It so happens that, because there was the calculated leak by the French, the Letter of Intent has had to be published. What surprises me is why some of my hon. Friends did not dig out the previous Letters of Intent and expose them to hon. Members opposite and give vent to their wrath on them.
I do not know why my hon. Friends always regard their wrath as being something which is particularly suitable to be given vent to on members of the Government. I can only draw the conclusion, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, that the present Labour Government—I expect applause from hon. Members opposite—are about the worst Government that this country has ever had. My hon. Friend had not a good word to say for them.
Political immaturity is demonstrated in another and more subtle way, in a failure to read between the lines, to accept that this is what we would expect it to be—a political document as well as an economic one. For example, its reference to "the growth of money supply" is quite intriguing, because I should imagine that this is the sort of thing that any 0 level student of economics might tear apart with the greatest of ease. To talk about the supply of money as a constant is to

1179
accept the implication that in some way in 1967 the quantity theory of money in its crudest form is more relevant than it was 100 years ago. Perhaps this was written by M. Rueff himself. I am only surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was not required to say that the level of money supply in this country should be determined in accordance with the sacred principles of the gold standard and be determined, in effect, by our holding of our stock of gold. Surely my hon. Friends can accept that this was said by the Chancellor with his tongue in his cheek.
I should apply the same yardstick to this mystical £1,000 million—I see we have the American interpretation of billion now—net borrowing requirement. All right. We can interpret this in the most gruesome way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale quoted Mr. Paul Bareau. The Financial Times said that the cut to £1,000 million was "almost an irrelevance". I accept that. We have had so many lectures by economists in the House since 1964 that we all know that, if we want to decide whether an increase in the net borrowing requirement is inflationary, we have to take a whole lot of other factors in the national accounting framework into the calculation. Anyone knows that sort of argument.
Anyone will accept, also, that the £1,400 million could become £1,000 million as a consequence of the gentle processes of reflation itself. If, as we expect, there is growth next year, this growth will yield revenues which will cut the net borrowing requirement of the Government.
We now have a National Loans Fund Bill. A cynical publication like the Economist suggests that the advantage of that Bill will be
"that the meaningless figure which used to be called the British Treasury's overall borrowing requirement will henceforth not be called anything at all so that the size of it will not scare foreigners out of their wits."
If those are its purposes, we need not bother with it.
I turn now to what might be regarded not as something one can read between the lines, but as more substantial objects of criticism in the Letter of Intent. The Chancellor may have to face some cuts in Government expenditure. I hope that he will bear in mind the words of my hon.
1180
Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt). He will never have more power at his elbow than he has in the period between now and the Budget. Certain things may have to be sacrificed. Perhaps the Financial Times is wrong in saying that the Industrial Expansion Bill is to be laid on one side, but, if certain things have to be sacrificed, then, to make possible this shift of resources, the Chancellor should do it.
I do not know whether it is acceptable or not, but I put this suggestion to him. Rather than put forward the bogus National Loans Fund Bill, let him realise that a step he could take would be to take some of the nationalised industry borrowing out of the Budget altogether, by throwing at least gas and electricity borrowing on to the market. I know that this would have certain repercussions. Because it would mean a higher rate of interest, it might force up certain prices. But let us never forget that this may be the direction in which the country has to go if its real cuts fall not on investment or on public expenditure but on consumption.
I know that my next suggestion is, perhaps, totally unacceptable to some of my hon. Friends, but I ask the Chancellor to consider seriously whether this is the moment to move from increasing the burden of taxation on individuals and companies and to move it to the poor old consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Not too much of that! I say that partly because I am a dedicated Common Marketeer. I believe that we must accept that, sooner or later, we shall have to move to a tax on added value.
The importance of this is simple. A great deal of our devaluation advantage will be eroded anyway as a result of various factors which have already been mentioned, but the fact that the Common Market countries are moving towards this form of tax on added value will devalue their prices against us. The Americans have already calculated that, by the beginning of next year, the Germans, through this shift, will have an added advantage of 2 or 3 per cent. on their prices.
Some of our cost advantage at the moment also derives from the system whereunder our social security contributions, falling directly on costs, are very

1181
much lower than they are in Western Europe. As these increase, another factor in raising our costs, we shall again be in a difficult situation. I doubt that the Chancellor will think seriously about that.
We should accept that the condition under paragraph 11 of the Letter of Intent relating to saving, and so on, is something to be welcomed. If, because he feels forced to do it or because he does It voluntarily out of his own inclination, the Chancellor introduces something like an indexed bond, something for the average saver, not the wealthy savers who have the chance to invest in equities, and so forth—if he can create something which will offer a hedge against inflation and perhaps, some participation in growth, that will be something from which we shall gain.
Now, the conditions regarding exchange control. I am a bit concerned about this. As distinct from many of my hon. Friends, I should welcome more overseas capital investment because I believe that this is the only way for us to get to international company status. Unless we get to international company status, we shall have problems ahead. But what concerns me more is this. Because we are a reserve currency country, a trading currency country, a depository of hot money and the rest, it may be necessary for us to take certain steps, which the previous Chancellor would not take, to exercise some control in this field.
Few people know much about it. All sorts of suggestions are put forward, referring to 28-day rules such as the Swiss have, for instance. In fact, the Swiss do not have a 28-day rule. On the Continent, as we know from the O.E.C.D. Capital Markets Study, there are all sorts of interest arrangements, and these the Chancellor should study. It is one of the ironies of history that, under a Labour Government, the British economy has become more sensitive to the movement of volatile hot money as a result of the creation of the Eurocurrency market, which itself arises because of the American banking Regulation Q which refuses the payment of high interest on short-term money. This has laid us wide open. We hear a lot about sterling liabilities, but our non-sterling liabilities are now
1182
£3,500 million. I hope that the Chancellor will look at that problem.
Our balance of payments has deteriorated in a secular sense. There is no doubt that that can be associated with the enormous growth of our overseas expenditure. But what overseas expenditure cannot explain is the fact that every time we have rapid growth we have a short-term deterioration within 12 months entirely due to the rapid growth of imports. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I think that within the Letter of Intent we could exercise control over this Achilles heel in the balance of payments by advance deposits for imports, by a simple extension of monetary policy which is not a contravention of exchange control. I hope that the Chancellor will look at that suggestion.
I am sorry that the debate has taken the turn that it has in some ways. But I hope that something fruitful will come of it.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. David Howell: It would be churlish of me, speaking from the back benches below the Gangway, not to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for the part he has played with others in giving us the opportunity to have this debate, to hear the various diverting speeches, including the profound and utterly sensible speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), and also to allow humble back benchers to look at some of the issues which too often in the past have been decided behind closed doors and by closed minds.
The remarkable thing about the debate on the Letter of Intent is the contrast between it and the heady, gay atmosphere in which the devaluation debate was conducted a fortnight ago. At that time, we heard from the benches opposite that there had been a wonderful technical adjustment, a financial change which had miraculously produced the easy solution. I think that one hon. Member opposite said that it had brought him out of agony and was of profound ideological importance for him and the Labour Party. Devaluation a simple adjustment of the exchange rate, had done all those things. It was no surprise, therefore, when we heard from the benches opposite the

1183
sound or rejoicing and clinking glasses about the quick solution which would do it all.
The importance of the publication of the Letter of Intent and the opportunity to debate it is above all that it brings home to all those who thought that there was a quick and easy way that there is not. It brings home to them that far from devaluation being a technical gimmick which will cut the corners, unite the Labour Party ideologically, allow a 4 per cent. growth rate and so on, there are still severe and difficult problems ahead, that there is no instant solution and that no amount of cheering will bring one about.
That is a vitally important contribution for the debate to make, and it is ironic that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who does not hold that view, should have promoted the debate. At the centre of the requirements in the Letter of Intent, requirements which all of us knew were necessary before devaluation, at the time and since, of the devaluation, is the question of Government spending. Several hon. Members have already spoken about that. I think that it was the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) who said that there is an awful lot of loose talk on public spending, that it is too easy for international bankers and others to say, "Cut Government spending", and for politicians and hon. Members on both sides of the House to say that they will cut it, and delegate to other people how it can be done.
I agree that there is too much loose talk on public spending. I share the surprise of other hon. Members that the Letter of Intent for a standby credit of enormous proportions should talk of cutting Government spending in a relatively loose form. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer used to stand at the Dispatch Box in genial form and shake his head when there was talk of cutting Government spending. He said that it could not be done. So many programmes were fixed and decided far ahead—electricity, roads and other crucial investment programmes. "Is the hon. Member proposing that these be cut?" he used to ask. If we are to consider the implications in the Letter of Intent we must face up to cutting public spending,
1184
because unless we do so we shall not meet the requirements of the Letter or of intelligent economic management, regardless of loans. We shall not deal with the central issue of control of our economy and with the basic requirement for the expansionary policy for which the Chancellor must be the first to wish.
The Letter confronts us with three issues about public spending. First, if I thought that the cuts which are now hinted at and proposed by the Chancellor would be panic cuts in our investment in electricity generating equipment and telephone exchange equipment, and major cuts in road programmes, I should be very dismayed. What use is a half-built piece of equipment, a half-built refinery, a half-constructed road? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will contain himself for two minutes I shall make specific suggestions. I do not want any help from hon. Members on the bench in front of me at the moment.
If there were panic cuts in the forms of investment I have mentioned, we should not be facing the problem in the right way. Those programmes must go on. They were arranged a long time ago and are important for the future efficiency of the country. To cut them would compound the difficulties and make it more certain in future that we were back where we were before, with higher costs, and a still weak economy.
What may be possible, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, interestingly suggested, and what we should be debating, is not that the programmes should be cut but that the system of financing them should be totally changed. The hon. Member suggested that gas and electricity borrowing might be done on the capital market. We could examine that suggestion further; road investment could also well come from private resources. The roads are essential, but they could be paid for in a different way. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says, "By tolls". Exactly. A similar idea could be thought out for telephones. Under the new public corporation to replace the G.P.O. they could be returned in greater part to private enterprise. Those would be ways of preserving the programmes, but ensuring that Government spending was cut.

1185
Secondly, unless we can cut current spending, as well as capital, and specify the cuts, we shall not meet the requirements of the Letter of Intent. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly painted to the need for far greater and wider use of charges. It must be right to reintroduce them for prescriptions. As the Plowden Report rightly said, there should be charges for nursery education. Without them, the result is that there is no nursery education.
The hon. Member for Penistone raised the controversial question of housing. Our attitude would be different if we thought that the millions of £s of housing subsidies really were eliminating homelessness and providing housing for those who need it. But many hon. Members know the difficult situation of being approached by young people with a couple of children who are unable to find a council house. I would perhaps agree that we should not touch the housing program me itself, but there is no doubt that the money given in housing subsidies is being spent in ways which do not achieve the result we want. That is why it is wasteful and there is room for improvement without disturbing the basic aims of the housing programme. The Letter of Intent does not specify what we intend to do but I hope that the Chancellor will he specific, because the sooner the Government are more specific the more possible it will be for us to contain the situation and improve it.
Then there is the question of those big cus in defence for which hon. Members opposite have called, and perhaps they are right. If the Government lead us to believe that there have been defence cuts, we must also be told what cuts there have been in commitments as well. It is impossible to imagine that the Government can maintain existing defence commitments, with troops scattered all over South-East Asia during the next decade, while still managing to cut defence expenditure. We need much more confirmation on this aspect.
But, of course, it is not merely a question of cutting programmes but of changing policies, carrying out the whole business of government very much more cheaply. There are a number of ways—and bankers, American, French or any other, or administrators of central Govern-
1186
ment are the first to point them out and use them—in which we could carry out existing policies much more economically. This would produce savings in itself.
It is not beyond the bounds of policy that we could aim for a 5 per cent. cut in every main civil programme by the use of proper cost reduction techniques and cost cutting in central Government. That would make substantial contributions to assisting us. If properly organised, formalised and announced in this House, it would make a contribution to increasing efficiency of government and dramatically raising its quality.
Our public spending is widely regarded inside and outside the country as out of control. We have an antique system of control over it. This House has little or no say in the control of long-term Government expenditure. If we had had sufficient control in the past, there would have been no letter of intent, no devaluation, no loan, and we would not have had this debate. The problem would have been solved by the sensible control of public spending.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I cannot help expressing a little sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the exchequer in his friends. I felt his embarrassment at the tabloid, Cecil King nonsense we had from the benches behind him a little earlier. Indeed, I shared his embarrasment.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was really based on two illusions. The first was that we are discussing a loan. We are not. We are discussing a stand-by credit to operate as a deterrent against speculators. This is not money we are going to use.
Secondly, it is an illusion to say that this is an agreement. It is nothing of the sort. It is an expression of intention. These were the intentions of my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary. I happen to think that they are not very good intentions, for reasons I shall come to, but they are not conditions, and I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is quite right.
If my right hon. Friend wishes to change policy—and in certain particulars I hope he will—it will be for him to go to Mr. Schweitzer and say, "I think another

1187
policy is desirable and it is now up to you to say whether you wish to keep this guarantee on in view of those policy changes which I propose to make." Again, for reasons I shall go into, I think it would be unlikely but not very disastrous if Mr. Schweitzer said "No."
I therefore do not feel any undue pessimism about the Letter of Intent. We have had three absolutely disastrous years which have been piled, with an added momentum, on disastrous years before them. All we have done in those three years is to prove yet further that Conservatism does not work, because it is Conservatism that we took over.
These years have been unhappy ones for me because I am not talking with hindsight. I saw this disaster as an inevitable consequence. I said so at the time and my words were of course, merely discounted as the disgruntled bleatings of a disappointed man. Still, I am in a position to say now that every warning I gave has been justified by events and therefore it may be worthwhile just to rehearse the basic things which made me think this way, so that, perhaps they may not be repeated.
First, I come from a banking family and to me the recipe for disaster has always been for a trader to act as banker for his customers. We have seen proof of that time and again. Swedish Match and Kruger were a spectacular example. In the nineteenth century it was different for us. We had unlimited resources but now we are an ordinary trader and to try to be banker as well inevitably invites disaster.
Secondly, I am a planner and the moment one binds oneself to a certain level as first priority, one is putting planning outside one's control because the basic planning decision is always the size of the product and if a business takes in a committee of creditors to decide the size of its product then that business cannot plan for itself.
Immediately the Government gave absolute priority to the exchange rate, the National Plan went out of the window. That seemed to me to be obvious. I want to quote some words used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which seem to express this very well—and he was writing, incidentally, in Tribune. He said:
1188
"For Toryism makes finance not the servant but the master of the industrial and trading community. Instead of using the selective powers of physical controls … the Tories attempt to solve economic problems by the crude instrument of finance which acts like a hydrostatic control, raising and lowering the volume of water in a tank. It is not selective … that is why too often the baby of full employment is thrown out with the bath water."
That article was in Tribune on 11th November, 1953, and it would be hard to find a better description of what has happened in these years.
At last, it seems to me, we have freed ourselves from this disastrous situation. We have freed ourselves from being crucified on the figure of 2·80. I hope that the level of 2·40 is not to be another sacred number and another last ditch for us to die in.
I should like to have the £ floating, available to change at any time, but I shall not now go into that argument. If we are to avoid this disaster in future and profit as we should be able to profit from devaluation, we have to do certain things. Here I entirely agree that we have to live within our income. This means reducing expenditure, particularly in foreign currency and on things we cannot afford. One of those things I would put as paying danegeld to Aden in the hope that they will not do something which they may not do anyway but which they will do if they wish. The second thing we should not do is to spend millions in Bahrain in order to build up for another humiliation similar to that we have had in Aden. The third concerns our nuclear weapons. They are incredible to our enemies, embarrassing to our friends and impress no one but ourselves and they are very expensive.
Lastly—and this will not please some of my hon. Friends—there is the question of Rhodesia. Our objectives may be impeccable—I take leave to doubt it, but they may be—but they are beyond our means. Lord Salter in another place put the cost, taking into account the effect on copper prices and the damage to our South African trade, as nearer £200 million a year than £150 million. This is a heavy and costly burden on our balance of payments.
If we are to put up our exports by £500 million, which is what is aimed at, the market in which we have to get at

1189
least £200 million of that increase is South Africa. It is our second biggest market and by far our most expansive. We shall not get that increase by maintaining an interference which we cannot afford in business beyond the seas which is no longer ours anyway.
Another thing we have to do is increase exports and, as has been said, this will happen to a great degree following naturally upon devaluation. Devaluation will add to the profit margin of exports and if one increases the profit margin people go for exports. There has to be some restraint in order to ensure that there are available resources for this but when one talks about a £750 million to £800 million cut in home consumption I venture to say that that is masochistic nonsense.
That will not release resources. It will paralyse them. It is the kind of thing which will throw the country into strikes, go-slows, industrial conflict and restrictive practices. If we are to get increased resources for exports we have also to get increased enthusiasm and movement and we shall not get this by such economy.
Again, it is unrealistic to say that we must suddenly switch over our balance of payments to a £500 million surplus—which, after all, means a £500 million deficit for somebody else. I would rather see us balancing our income payments on a higher level. But if we are to do this, the other and most important thing is that we should protect ourselves from capital movements. That is the banking side of the business and such movements have proved disastrous again and again.
The reserve and trading currency use of our currency by others is the problem we have to deal with. That is what this credit is about. Such a situation means that our economic decisions have to be taken not according to our own requirements but according to the nerves or even the spite of other nations. To put ourselves in a situation in which our workers can be thrown into unemployment because Kuwait has a row with Israel and decides to withdraw its reserves from London is an absurdity that we should not tolerate.
No one else has these currency crises because no one else—except America, which has adequate backing—allows their currency to be used for this purpose. Certainly the cost of money to finance
1190
this banking is more than the profits, even for America which succeeds in getting the money which it requires at an average of 1½ per cent., or 2 per cent. cheaper than we do and even the Americans, according to a Harvard investigation, find they lose money on the reserve rôle of the dollar.
What are the solutions? The ideal is an international currency to whom this would be transferred—good luck if we get it. The second is a complete and unconditional guarantee of sterling. That would have exactly the same effect as adopting an international currency. The sterling value would cease to be affected by our internal policies and we should use it as a trading currency, as everybody else who uses our currency, but that is too difficult an argument to go into now. An alternative to that would be simply a dollar guarantee which would make the £ the little brother of the dollar and an international currency for that purpose.
The third and most important solution of all is that, as on three previous occasions we should stop sterling being a reserve currency. We did that in 1914, in 1931 and in 1939. This has all been worked out and we worked it out in detail during the war. It means that sterling balances are usable only by consent of the Bank of England for ordinary trading purposes. I will not go into detail, but this is something which can be done and as an alternative to accepting a loan on unacceptable conditions it is something which we should do. We do not have this money for our own use. It is not financing anything, but is there solely to provide an assurance to other people who are using our currency for their purposes and that means that if the conditions are unsuitable to us, we ought not to have it.
I turn to the Letter of Intent. I said that it was not a condition. It is an expression of intention, I believe a disastrous intention. It expresses an intention to continue the same sort of disastrous policy which under two parties has brought us where we are. I cannot expect a declaration from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been in office a week—it is not fair—but let him at least say that he is free to change, that he was right when he said that it was not a condition and that he is free to re-think policies and to give us the hope of a new road

1191
which may divert us from our assignation with disaster. Let him remember that this money is not being lent to us. It is being lent to the world to guarantee the use of our sterling not for our purposes, but for the purposes of others. We ought to give the Chancellor a chance to reconsider the new policies. This letter, for which I could not conceivably vote, is not his letter and he has the opportunity to set us on a new road.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Iain Macleod: This is something of a House of Commons occasion, as it is the first time that the new Standing Order No. 9 has been put into operation. I think that the House and those who have listened to the debate will agree that we have spent a very worthwhile three hours.
This is not the occasion—and I intend to be very brief—for thunderous speeches from the Dispatch Box. The charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that at his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new rôle last Thursday he was less than candid with the House. We shall listen with some interest in a few minutes to what he has to say, but I am bound to say that on the evidence produced so far I would find him guilty of that charge.
The charge was mounted from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), one of the most brilliant, if not the most brilliant, speakers in the House of Commons, and a man with an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion. This is the same man who made that excellent and passionate speech in favour of the Government in the devaluation debate immediately following my speech. I warned him and his hon. Friends more than once in the summer that they were being conned by the Government and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. The truth is that the former Chancellor, the present Home Secretary, was right in what he told the House on 24th July: we now have debt; we have deflation and we have devaluation. The lowering of the standards of the people of this country, of which the present Home Secretary then spoke, is both the consequence and now the policy of the present Government.
1192
I come straight to the issue of the publishing of the Letter of Intent. I do not mind whether the Chancellor deals with this or not. It is a pity to make confidential and even secret communications public. I would dearly like to see the communications written in July, 1966, and I dare say that hon. Members opposite would like to see any other letters of intent which there may have been, but let us be quite clear why the present Chancellor decided to publish this Letter of Intent. It was not because he wanted to. It was because everything, or almost everything, had already appeared in the newspapers.
I have a cutting from the international edition of the New York Times of Thursday, 30th November, of an article by Mr. Clyde Farnsworth, and it is quite clear that if he had not seen the declaration of intent, at least he had a very detailed knowledge of what was in it. It includes this sentence:
"Not since France needed international help in 1957 has a major industrial country been forced to give up so much sovereignty in economic affairs."
I do not know whether that is right, but it is the judgment of somebody who was clearly in Paris last week and very close to these events.
These terms have been described by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale as intolerable shackles. Let me turn to whether the Chancellor was as candid as he should have been. He referred to only one paragraph in the Letter of Intent, paragraph 3:
"The Government's main objectives of policy remain the achievement and maintenance of a strong balance of payments, together with a high rate of economic growth which will make for full employment."
It was the only paragraph from the whole of that paper which he could have read which would have attracted not only no comment, but general cheers from both sides of the House. He referred to it twice. Looking back, he must regret that he did not give any indication at all of the terms, of the four-monthly reviews and the other matters which were being asked of us.
On another and more detailed occasion—and I should like to debate this with him—he said:
"… this does not involve any net deflationary policy"—

1193
Later he said:
"It does not in any way restrict my freedom of manoeuvre in arriving at the Budget next spring."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 645–6.]
I simply do not see how the Chancellor can reconcile that with what he knew was in the Letter of Intent which he was to make public within a few moments, because paragraph 16 of the Declaration of Intent, the last paragraph, includes the most important, although the shortest, word in the letter. It says:
"If, in the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom or the Managing Director of the Fund"—
not "and", but "or"—then various consequences follow. I simply do not understand how the Chancellor can argue that there are no conditions; of course there are. There are conditions and there are understandings and the parties to it drafted [his Letter of Intent together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has detected that the paragraph about the money supply was drafted in France. I have seen two comments suggesting that in fact it was drafted by the Chicago school of economists, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that it was international bankers' Esperanto.
But the salient fact of the charge, if it be a charge, remains: this is not a free will offering by ourselves. This is banker and client, perfectly properly—I am making no complaint about that—joining together to decide what the proper rôle of the client is to be in future. There are very few of us in the House who in one capacity or another have not had experience of that, and I have had experience from both sides.
Last Thursday I quoted an article by Mr. William Davis in The Guardian of last November when he quoted Pierre-Paul Schweitzer saying:
"When we put all this money at your disposal, we just agreed with your Government on what was our common view of desirable policies in the United Kingdom."
There is no doubt that that is the position.
I see no reason why we should be naїve about it. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have said, and I agree, that we know that every banker, domestic, foreign, or international, discusses with his client what the client is to do with the money, and whether they are conditions, or strings, or intolerable shackles,
1194
or whatever they are, they are there, and it is absurdly naïve of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and his hon. Friends to suggest that money is obtainable on any other terms.
At this point I want to quote what the Prime Minister said on 3rd October, 1964, just before the election, a quotation well known to the House. He said:
"You cannot go, cap in hand, to the central bankers of Europe … and maintain your freedom of action, whether on policies, maintaining full employment here in Britain or even on social policies. The central bankers will, before long, be demanding that Britain puts her house in order."
Those are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister before the election, and they are an accurate description of our present situation.
Part of the trouble—and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made this quite clear—was that hon. Members opposite believed the Prime Minister. I said that I would not make a tempestuous speech. I simply say quietly from this side of the House that we do not think that that is a particularly good reason. In the Ministerial broadcast these were the sorts of sentences which brought the hon. Member and his hon. Friends into the Lobby:
"Last weekend the Government decided that we were not prepared to accept any solution which placed rigid limitation on the ability of our people and Government to solve our problems by our own exertions."
I suppose that the small print word there
is "rigid". He went on:
"And that is why the international monetary community have rallied round with a display of formidable strength to back the operation. This backing is of course to deter the speculators, not for us to live on. And that's why it doesn't involve unacceptable conditions."
The small print word there, of course, is "unacceptable".
The Chancellor speaks last in this debate, as he usually does in debates when he can. It is a pity that in this as in some other debates he did not speak in the beginning and allow us to question him in the ordinary way. We have become used to it by now. It is always somebody else's fault; never his own—[Interruption.]
At the end of this debate the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can, if he wishes, force a Division or, if the House allows him, he can withdraw his Motion. One of the difficulties—and the House as a

1195
whole appreciates this—is that when a Motion is for the Adjournment that particular Motion can and often does, and has done in the past, mean very different things to different people often on the same side of the House. It is one of the procedural difficulties with which we are all familiar.
It has been said—and I have quoted evidence for it—that these conditions and strings are more detailed and more severe than any that have been imposed upon us before. That is probably so, but I would have little confidence in the I.M.F. or, indeed, in any other bank which did not have a most careful investigation and did not have whatever arrangements and understandings it thought were appropriate at the time.
This is the position as I see it. It is for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to decide what he wishes to do. He and his hon. Friends have voted against devaluation and they have voted for devaluation; they have voted against strings and tonight it may be that they will vote for strings. The question surely is whether it is right for the International Monetary Fund to impose conditions on a standby loan of such a vast size. If I were asked that question and tried to answer it, the only possible answer I could give would be: yes, of course it is. We are not arguing on the details; we are arguing whether it is right and appropriate that that should be done.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale asked on a number of occasions why the earlier speeches had been made in the devaluation debate. For a very simple reason—to get him and his hon. Friends into the same Lobby as the Government. That was the position then. But now we are considering the question whether, with this vast stand-by loan, there should be conditions. I think that there should, and I echo very much the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). I have been afraid, as I said in the devaluation debate, of what I have called the irresolution of the Prime Minister. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a chance, with firmness, in the months ahead, at least, to go a long way to repair some of the damage that has been done. If he will show that firmness, whether he likes it
1196
or not, he will get support from this side of the House. Although we genuinely think that he was lacking in candour last Thursday—and on reflection he must come to that same conclusion—because of the attitude I have expressed in relation to the International Monetary Fund, I would not think it right to oppose this Motion.
6.24 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has delivered a brief but not altogether untypical speech. The British economy in the past two and a half weeks has been passing through one of its most critical and decisive periods for a number of years past. In my view, it has been an even more critical and decisive, but by no means necessarily depressing, period from the point of view of the future.
What has the right hon. Member for Enfield, West contributed? On the first Monday he confined himself to asking my predecessor to resign; on the Tuesday he launched a bitter personal attack upon the Prime Minister; and today he has been almost exclusively concerned with trying to show that I, answering his Parliamentary Question within three hours of entering my new office, tried to mislead the House.
I make only two brief comments on that, for I have no desire to devote my first speech as Chancellor to a semantic argument with the right hon. Gentleman. First, I have heard of Ministers trying to suppress the truth by suppressing vital documents, but I have never heard of one seeking deception and, at the same time, making sure that the House and the country were immediately put in full possession of a document of a type which had never previously been published. To do that really would imply not cunning, but imbecility, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, for our first few encounters, will at least acquit me of that.
Secondly, I note the strictly personal nature of each of his three contributions to the debate on these great issues. Not a word of constructive suggestion, not a single shaft of light on to the future. Therefore, if I may, I will turn from his speech, because I want to try and deal briefly with some of the wider issues.

1197
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend knows that I would not attempt flattery with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, and various other hon. Members who have spoken on this side, are worried lest the I.M.F. standby credit means that, by devaluation, we have merely escaped from one straitjacket into another. I understand their concern, even though I do not share it. We have lived too long, under successive Governments, within an economic straitjacket. But they are wrong in seeing the essence of that straitjacket as being the decision to take a standby credit or the terms of the Letter of Intent. The straitjacket arises not out of that, but out of the facts that we have been spending abroad more than we have been earning, that 1967 will be our fifth successive year with a balance of payments deficit, that as a result we are heavily in debt, and that, again, under successive Governments, we have suffered eight major balance of payments crises in the past 20 years.
Those are the stark facts of the situation. No one surely believed that devaluation in itself could sweep all that out of the way. Certainly, not my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale who, in his speech on 21st November, said:
"No one, so far as I know, has said that devaluation is a solution to all our problems. Nothing of the sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 1164.]
My hon. Friend was quite right. The act of devaluation could not in itself begin to abolish our debts—indeed, it makes them more expensive—or to puff away our trading deficit. That, too, is still there, and may even increase slightly in the next few months as the result of the terms of trade worsening against us. Devaluation improves the competitive edge of our exports and, as a result, offers us the opportunity of achieving the export-led expansion which has eluded us for so many years past.
But even that does not come automatically. It depends—and again I quote my hon. Friend's speech of 21st November—on how we exploit it over the next 12 months. And it is upon the result of that exploitation that we can hope to build a new-found solvency, combined with full employment, combined with a securely based expansion. When we
1198
have found it—but not a moment before—we shall begin to free ourselves from the constraints of the past. This is what I meant last week—I am sorry if I was not as clear as I should have been—by saying that the strings which counted came not from the I.M.F., but from the realities of the situation, and I am glad to have the opportunity of spelling this out in more detail today.
I turn now to slightly more detailed points. First, why do we need a standby credit? Certainly not to live on, to finance a continuing or even a growing deficit. This is the essential difference between this credit, which I hope we may never have to touch—I cannot be certain, otherwise we would not need it—and the sort of long-term loan, a subsidy to our standard of living, which we would have had to try to negotiate as an alternative to devaluation.
But we still need the standby. Devaluation is necessarily a hazardous process, involving a great upset to the world exchanges and considerable strain on the internal monetary system. And even with devaluation we are an island only in the most strictly geographical sense of that term. We are not an economic island. No great trading nation can be. We have the most vital interest in not upsetting world trade, and the methods by which it is financed. We have an even more vital interest in the stability of our currency at its new parity, and it would have been incredibly rash to have faced the immediate future without the confidence-giving backing of this standby.
What about the so-called "strings"? It is no doubt the case that we could not get the credit without a Letter of Inent such as my predecessor wrote on 23rd November. This is the practice in international finance, as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who themselves wrote Letters of Intent, know very well. It is also the practice in arranging almost any form of financing. The lender wants to know the future intentions of the borrower for the management of his affairs. That is not unreasonable, and, indeed, it is in any event totally inevitable. But what is crucial is whether the borrower binds himself against his better judgment, and that my right hon. Friend the

1199
present Home Secretary did not do. He set out in the Letter of Intent a series of propositions which he believed to be necessary to enable us to exploit the possibilities of devaluation, and I, on the brief studies which I have so far been able to make, do not dissent from him.
What are the main points? First, we say that we are aiming at an improvement in the balance of payments of £500 million a year by 1969. This means a surplus in the second half of 1968 of £100 million, that is, at the rate of £200 million a year, with a further substantial improvement thereafter. Do any of my hon. Friends, or does any hon. Member, think that that is too rapid an improvement? If they do, it is an amazing proposition, for it means that they want to pay off the debt at a slower rate, and to remain longer in the straitjacket.
Then we discuss how this is to be achieved, and let no one believe that it will happen automatically. This means a transfer of resources of about £750 million to £800 million, £500 million to improve the balance of payments, and up to £300 million to compensate for the change in terms of trade. As the export demand builds up, we have to make room for it in the economy. Some room has been made already, but almost certainly not enough, and this is intentional. We do not want to dig a hole and leave it empty. We want it to be there only when the export demand is ready to fill it, and we think that the Budget is likely to be about the right time for this further excavation. This is why, on the present very provisional assumptions, we think that it will be reasonable to restrict the borrowing requirements of the central Government to £1,000 million, which, I may say, is a higher figure than in almost every year since the last for many years past.
If the assumptions change, if, for instance, the economy were to sag, we could and would look at the matter again, and, in any event, we have given no indication of how we propose to achieve the objective, whether by cuts in expenditure, or by increases in taxation, still less by what cuts or by what increases. But the objective of shifting resources is essential. Without it, there just would not be room, without grave overheating, for the exports to build up.
1200
We might produce a post-devaluation boom, but it would not be an export-led one, and thus, once again, we would be back with our old problems with the additional limitation that we had tried devaluation and failed to use it properly, and this we are determined to avoid.
Then we have the paragraph about prices and incomes. We say that we shall maintain the policy of the last White Paper, and we shall try to make its application still more effective so that increases in earnings shall not be greater than we can afford. Could we reasonably do less? I do not think so. Even if the I.M.F. had never been heard of, does anyone seriously contend that excessive wage and salary increases could not fritter away the competitive edge of devaluation over a year or so? And supposing we just sat back and allowed that to happen, what policy is it then proposed we should pursue at the end of the day? Severe restraint was highly necessary before devaluation. It is even more vital after it, and if only we can accept it in the short-term it will give us a richer reward than anything we have known in this economy for years past. It needs no I.M.F. to tell us these facts.
Then we have the proposal for three consultations with the I.M.F. during the coming year. There is nothing in itself derogatory about this. In some form consultation is a constant feature of international life these days. Last Thursday, while I was answering a Private Notice Question on the Letter of Intent, the United States economy was under scrutiny in the O.E.C.D. in Paris. Of course, if one is in debt the scrutiny is likely to be more frequent and more searching. This is a fact of life. The consultations which we have proposed are at perfectly reasonable times. In February, we shall be doing a post-devaluation review. In the summer we would, in any event, have been consulting the Fund under the normal Article 8 procedure which has long applied to all members of the Fund. In November, the credit will either be allowed to run out, or have to be renewed.
If any of my hon. Friends do not like these consultations, this, I suggest, is an added reason for their giving every support to the hard and unpopular measures which are necessary to make the fullest possible success of devaluation. Let them

1201
support us in getting the balance of payments right by a substantial margin, and securely right, at the earliest possible moment. For that is the way, and the only way, to avoid having people looking over our shoulders.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I am not quarrelling with the conditions, and I have not done so, but there is one point to which I drew attention, and on which I would be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am referring to paragraph 16. It is not a question of the Government. The word is "or", not "and". In other words, the initiative can also come from the Managing Director of the Fund. Is this so?
Mr. Jenkins: The paragraph, which I have not before me at the moment, means exactly what it says; but it is consultation and certainly not instruction.
These various points and the other lesser ones which have been mentioned in no way add up to making the post-devaluation prospect a depressing rather than a stimulating one. A hard prospect, yes, because it will involve some immediate check in the standard of living and much personal sacrifice. But not a depressing prospect, because it offers us the opportunity of solving our difficulties by effort and not by wasted resources.
The rate of growth for the coming 12 months Mould be quite a bit above the 3 per cent. originally postulated by my right hon. Friend. And it should be 12 months, after the initial difficulties, of rising employment. During the first year these processes should not be too fast, otherwise they will undermine their own future, but the changes will be firmly in the right direction.
What we must be primarily concerned about, however, is not 1968, but 1968 as a foundation for the future. We need a strategy to ensure that expansion, when
it comes, will be securely based—[Interruption.] No, not even the 1969 election. We want something a great deal more sound and long-lasting than a pre-election improvement. We need a strategy to ensure that expansion, when it comes, will be securely based—not just a brief interlude of spree, but the beginning of the end of our debt-ridden past. That is my objective and the objective of the Government.
The announcement of devaluation on 18th November was obviously the end of a chapter, the end of a three-year chapter, in which my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary had fought with immense courage and determination to preserve the previous parity of the £. But it was more than that. It was also, in my view, the end of a volume in which way back, before the beginning of the three years, we had been trying to live above our means both at home and abroad. We had not done either for ignoble reasons.
Much of our world rôle has been carried out for unselfish purposes and it is certainly not discreditable to try to give people the highest possible standard of living. But both have to be paid for. In my view, two rules should take paramountcy. At home, we must take our bonuses after we have earned them and not before, and abroad we must recognise that the influence of Britain will depend more than anything else on the strength of our economy here at home. This is what we shall be judged by; I think that this is what we should be judged by. The immediate future is bound to be hard. But, in the longer term, if only we can accept that, our prosperity can be more abundant and more securely based than anything we have known in this country for decades past.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 17, Noes 231.

Division No. 7.]

AYES

[6.45 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Park, Trevor

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Ryan, John

Booth, Albert

Jackson, Peter M, (High Peak)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dickens, James

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Lee, John (Reading)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mendelson, J. J.

Mr. Ian Mikardo and

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Orme, Stanley

Mr. Russell Kerr.

NOES

Albu, Austen

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Alldritt, Walter

Gourlay, Harry

Moyle, Roland

Anderson, Donald

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Archer, Peter

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Murray, Albert

Armstrong, Ernest

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Neal, Harold

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Ogden, Eric

Barnes, Michael

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

O'Malley, Brian

Barnett, Joel

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Orbach, Maurice

Baxter, William

Hamling, William

Oswald, Thomas

Beaney, Alan

Hannan, William

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Bence, Cyril

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Padley, Walter

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Haseldine, Norman

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Hattersley, Roy

Palmer, Arthur

Binns, John

Hazell, Bert

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Bishop, E. S.

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Blackburn, F.

Henig, Stanley

Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hilton, W. S.

Pavitt, Laurence

Boston, Terence

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hooley, Frank

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Bradley, Tom

Horner, John

Pentland, Norman

Brooks, Edwin

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Probert, Arthur

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-unon-Tyne, W.)

Howie, W.

Randall, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Hoy, James

Rees, Merlyn

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Huckfield, Leslie

Richard, Ivor

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Cant, R. B.

Hunter, Adam

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Carmichael, Neil

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Coleman, Donald

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Concannon, J. D.

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sheldon, Robert

Corbert, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shore, Peter (Stepney)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Kenyon, Clifford

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Skeffington, Arthur

Dalyell, Tam

Lawson, George

Slater, Joseph

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Ledger, Ron

Snow, Julian

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Lomas, Kenneth

Stonehouse, John

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Loughlin, Charles

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Swingler, Stephen

Dell, Edmund

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Taverne, Dick

Dempsey, James

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Tinn, James

Dewar, Donald

McBride, Neil

Tuck, Raphael

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

McCann, John

Urwin, T. W.

Dobson, Ray

MacDermot, Niall

Varley, Eric G.

Doig, Peter

McGuire, Michael

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dunnett, Jack

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Wallace, George

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Mackie, John

Watkins, David (Consett)

Eadie, Alex

Mackintosh, John P.

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Maclennan, Robert

White, Mrs. Eirene

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Whitlock, William

Ellis, John

MacPherson, Malcolm

Wilkins, W. A.

Ennals, David

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Ensor, David

Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mapp, Charles

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Faulds, Andrew

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Fernyhough, E.

Marquand, David

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Finch, Harold

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Foley, Maurice

Mason, Roy

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ford, Ben

Mellish, Robert

Woof, Robert

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Wyatt, Woodrow

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Yates, Victor

Freeson, Reginald

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Gardner, Tony

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ginsburg, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. Ioan Evans and

Mr. Joseph Harper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.

  (BORROWING POWERS OF THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
  6.55 p.m.
  The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is No. 1—
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: On a point of order. As we are clearly three hours later than we expected to be in starting the Bill, which is an extremely important Measure, involving about £330 million, I wonder whether you would give me leave, Sir Eric, to move a Motion to report progress purely to elicit from the Minister how far he expects us to get in these very new circumstances.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): Further to that point of order. I hope that we will be able to complete the Bill this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is, as the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said, a very important Measure, involving a great deal of money and, under the National Coal Board, the management of an important industry at a crucial period. I t is, therefore, important that the Bill should be through before Christmas.
  Even more important, it already involves, in its social provisions, payments to about 2,500 men. It would be a great tragedy if this Committee were unable—it applies to either side: I make no point of it—in an issue involving human considerations of this magnitude, to see the Bill through to the end, even if it means tomorrow, mid-day.
  Mr. John Peyton: I do not think that the Minister's argument is in any way relevant. He refers to pressing human and social considerations, but these can be dealt with tomorrow—
  Sir Gerald Nabarro: When we are fresh.
  Mr. Peyton: The complaint, justifiably, of my h on. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is that the House
  1206
  of Commons is once again being treated by this Administration with nothing short of insolence. I have a good deal of sympathy—
  The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that we cannot have an irregular debate on points of order—
  Mr. Peyton rose—
  The Chairman: Order. We cannot have an irregular debate on points of order. Questions have been raised and answered under the guise of points of order for the benefit of the Committee to ascertain something with regard to the intentions about the proceedings of the Committee stage, but we cannot debate that matter in the guise of points of order.
  Mr. Peyton: The point is this, Sir Eric, if I may put it this way. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley asked whether, under these circumstances, you would allow her to move a Motion to report progress, and she then briefly gave the reasons. The Minister gave an irrelevant answer. This is the point.
  The Chairman: I was hoping that that would have concluded the matter—
  Mr. Peyton rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  The Chairman: Order. Unless there is a Motion before the Committee we cannot debate this on points of order—
  Mr. Peyton: With respect, Sir Eric—
  The Chairman: Order. If it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have a short debate on a Motion to report progress—
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Where is the Leader of the House? "Kipping" again.
  The Chairman: —that matter is something which, I suggest, the Committee might well consider at a later stage, but it is most irregular to have a Motion to report progress in order to ascertain the Government's intentions at the outset of the Committee stage proceedings. The normal course is to allow the Committee stage to proceed for a time and then,

  1207
  perhaps, to ascertain what are the Government's intentions with regard to proceedings. We really cannot pursue this on points of order and it would not be in accordance with any precedent for me to accept a Motion to report progress at this stage.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am on an entirely different point of order. It will be within your recollection, Sir Eric, that, on 19th July, the House sat through until 8.12 a.m. the following morning debating the affairs of the coal industry, due not to any filibustering on this side of the House or on the other side, but simply due to the mismanagement created by the Leader of the House in putting that Order—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not speaking to any point of order. We had better get oil, I think.
  Sir G. Nabarro: May I complete the matter, Sir Eric—
  The Chairman: Order. It is obvious from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is not on a point of order. We had better get on. Mr. Peyton.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. I warned you, Sir Eric—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I advised you, Sir Eric, that I was on a different point of order and the words which I uttered were merely a preamble. What I want to ask in one short sentence, is this: having regard to the notorious habits of the right hon. Gentleman, may we not have the Leader of the House here to rearrange business?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that is not a point of order. Mr. Peyton.
  Mr. Peyton: I rise at a most convenient moment for myself. I am happy that this very tepid and civil protest which was started so rightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has just now succeeded in obtaining the presence of the Leader of the House—
  Mr. David Griffiths: Get on with it.
  Mr. Peyton: —because we are dealing here with major matters. I accept, of course, that it is no fault of his that another subject has been debated over the last three hours, but I say this to the Leader of the House. To ask the House of Commons to make the kind of precipitate progress which is demanded of it, to cover the Amendments on the Paper, is an exorbitant demand, and—
  The Chairman: Order. We cannot go back on that. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to the Amendment which he is intending to move.
  Mr. Peyton: That, believe it or not, is my intention, Sir Eric—
  Mr. Thomas Swain: You could have fooled me.
  Mr. Peyton: That is not terribly difficult.
  I want to give a cordial welcome to the Leader of the House so that he may, in listening to my speech, gain some recognition of the immensity of the problems which we are discussing, and will be moved by the large residues of common sense which possess him to extend the time available.
  I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out '£900,000,000' and insert '£850,000,000'.
  This Amendment is very important. It seeks to give effect to the cry which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I and others have been making for many years. The general point of principle here—we do not feel that we are in any way unreasonable in pressing it again and again—is that the House of Commons should resume its erstwhile control over the country's financial resources and should not make them blindly over to the Government or to their creature, in this case the National Coal Board.
  I do not intend to make a long speech on this Amendment, but there are two questions which I would ask hon. Members carefully to apply their minds to. First, how reliable are the forecasts on which past policy has been framed and, therefore, how reliable are the forecasts on which the provisions of the Bill are

  1209
  based? Second, how much confidence can we properly place in the National Coal Board?
  On the first question, I would remind the Committee of various quotations from the mouths of Ministers. On 25th November, 1965, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, introducing a similar Bill:
  "… the provisions of the Bill are intended to provide the financial framework within which the industry can be healthy and viable."
  He went on:
  "… it is necessary for the Coal Board to accelerate its policies for consolidating production in the economic pits and improving efficiency."
  Later, he said:
  "I believe that, given the changes which we seek in the Bill, we will get a great viable industry which will maintain Britain as the most coal concentrated economy of any of the industrial nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 779, 780, 793.]
  None of these prophecies has come true. What has happened is that we have another, very similar Bill, and I am sure that I need not remind the Committee that the last operation was a financial one of some dimensions. It wrote off just over £400 million of the Coal Board's indebtedness.
  Having heard those quotations, the Committee will he interested to hear what was said by the present Minister almost exactly two years later:
  "The measures outlined in the Bill are a deliberate distortion of the market trend to give coal the breathing space it needs to improve its competitive position …"
  What grounds does the Minister have for asking us to accept this assurance when such similar statements made by his right hon. Friend two years ago are now like torn-up paper about his feet? The present Minister also said:
  "But I am in no doubt at all that if we tell these men the truth"—
  he can say that again—
  "and persuade society to meet the social consequences, the coal industry can enter the 'seventies in a sound position to play its part In future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 246–61.]
  It is only fair to concede to the Minister that the forecast which he has given are not as rosy as those given by the Chancellor of the Duchy when he occupied his position. However, we are
  1210
  more than justified in telling the Government that they have made these large and hopeful statements before. They introduced a massive financial measure to rescue the coal industry two years ago. That has not succeeded. Now they are back again and we find ourselves where we started, going through the same operation yet again. One wonders how the Minister can hold out well-founded hopes in these circumstances.
  Indeed, it is worth while looking at the precise forecasts which the two right hon. Gentlemen gave in their turn. In November, 1965, the then Minister of Power said:
  "… I consider that it would not be prudent to count on a coal market in 1970 above the range of 170–180 million tons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 781.]
  Two years later the present Minister had this to say:
  "With this extra help, coal demand in 1970 might be about 155 million tons, compared with total sales this year of 166 million tons".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 252.]
  The Committee will be in some difficulty in basing any conclusions on the forecasts which the Government now make, having in mind the fact that the forecasts of only two years ago have had to be so radically altered.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is not the position even worse than my hon. Friend states? Is he aware that in the Prices and Incomes Report No. 12, published in February, 1966, it was indicated, even at that time, that the estimate was 170–180 million tons? Those figures were, therefore, given less than two years ago.
  Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has kindly drawn attention to the restraint with which I am approaching the matter. The Government's forecasts made less than two years ago have been so falsified that it is difficult for any hon. Member to take seriously the forecasts now being made.
  7.15 p.m.
  How far is the House of Commons justified in placing further confidence in the Chairman of the National Coal Board and the Board which serves under him? Personally, I do not have that measure of confidence because for far too long

  1211
  Lord Robens pinned his faith—indeed, he nailed it to the mast—on the figure of 200 million tons. Although he had many opportunities to accept a more realistic figure, he adhered to that one, in my view disastrously for the coal industry.
  Neither have I any confidence in diversification. In the N.C.B.'s Annual Report and Accounts I cannot find sufficient information about how the subsidiaries and diversified activities are progressing. We can he certain that the work done by the N.C.B. in producing smokeless fuels has been exceedingly expensive. The remarks—I will not weary the Committee by reciting them—in the Annual Report on the subject of home fires, room heat and so on are uninformative and lacking in candour.
  The attitude of the Chairman to other fuel industries is profoundly unhelpful, particularly to gas and electricity, two industries which have given substantial help to coal in the past. The Chairman's conduct after the Aberfan disaster—
  Mr. Swain: On a point of order. I am following the hon. Gentleman's line of argument attentively and I am not asleep this time. I am wondering when the hon. Gentleman will be asked to address his remarks to the Amendment. I cannot see any words in the Amendment about the Chairman of the N.C.B.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman say anything out of order.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Further to my hon. Friend's point of order. If the hon. Gentleman was not technically out of order, is it not unusual for an hon. Member to direct the whole of his argument and attack not on the basis of an Amendment but on a Member of another place?
  The Deputy Chairman: The noble Lord is the Chairman of the N.C.B. I shall pay particular attention to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but so far nothing he has said has been out of order.
  Mr. Peyton: I am approaching this problem on two counts. The first is that the Government's forecasts are not sound and that they have been proved to be
  1212
  unsound in the past. The second is that I do not have the confidence in the Chairman of the N.C.B. and his Board that I feel we should have before reposing such financial powers and confidence in them.
  I was referring to Aberfan. I do not wish to say anything about that terrible disaster, but I do wish to say something about the Chairman following it. I wish to briefly quote—
  Mr. Michael McGuire: On a point of order. How in heaven's name can alluding to Aberfan—although the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to allude to it—have anything to do with the Amendment?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that the N.C.B. is charged with important responsibilities for safety in connection with spoil heaps and that a part of the money to be voted under the Bill will be devoted to this purpose? Is not any reference to Aberfan therefore completely in order? [Interruption.]
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will leave matters of order to the Chair. I am listening carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). When or if he gets out of order, I will be quick to tell him so.
  Mr. Peyton: It must be unique in the history of hearings before courts or tribunals that a counsel should say of his principal client:
  "I invite the Tribunal to say that nothing in his evidence assisted the Tribunal at all and that the position is exactly the same as if he had given no evidence at all."
  That does not fortify me with confidence in the Chairman or the Board.
  Why, in the very tender situation in which the coal industry finds itself—with the anxieties felt by hundreds of thousands of men—did the Chairman see fit, just before the publication of the Government's White Paper, to say that there would be jobs for only 65,000 men by 1980? I hope that I do not embarrass the Minister by saying that I agree with him that no one can tell what will be happening in 1980 or how many jobs there will be.
  That contribution of the Chairman was profoundly unhelpful. One is left with

  1213
  the unanswered question: why did he do what he did? I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) on Second Reading, when he said that it was disastrous that this feud should exist between the Minister and the Chairman of the N.C.B. I profoundly agree with that comment, which was greatly restrained.
  I have sought in these remarks to avoid using strong or excessive language. However. I do not believe that it would be right for the Committee, in dealing with sums of money of over £300 million, either to ignore the real difficulty of accurate forecasting and to fail to point out the danger of founding huge investments on forecasts which may prove to be wholly false within a couple of years. We must also point out that there are, and have been for some time, grounds for unease and lack of confidence in the N.C.B. I hope that none of my remarks will be taken in an unduly partisan sense, but I feel it right that I should have made them tonight.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: It may or may not interest my colleagues on these benches to learn that I am strongly tempted to support the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), though for reasons quite different from those he gave. I understand the hon. Gentleman, and I understand his opinions and the opinions of hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite dislike nationalisation, they dislike the National Coal Board, and they obviously have very little enthusiasm for its Chairman.
  On Second Reading last week, we debated, not this Bill but the White Paper. It was the White Paper that became the foundation for most of the arguments then adduced. I ventured to take a rather different line. I made a very short speech. It lasted only 13 minutes—it was, perhaps, the shortest speech in that debate. I did so because I was advised that as many hon. Members wished to address the House it was preferable that speeches should be rather briefer than usual. I make no promise on this occasion.
  This is a very important Amendment. Indeed, it is the essence of the whole argument. If, for example, the Committee decided not to concede further borrowing powers to the National Coal
  1214
  Board, but to curtail those borrowing powers by several millions of pounds, as the Amendment proposes, it would affect the future of the coal mining industry. It might also affect the future of the Chairman of the National Coal Board. It is therefore an important Amendment, and upon our decision on it depend all the other Amendments: settle this Amendment, and the rest is comparatively easy to follow, to argue and to decide.
  In last week's debate I ventured on behalf of my miner constituents—indeed, I had express instructions from them—to put a few questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister. In doing so, I remarked that I might not be able to stay to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's winding-up speech—which was to take place some time after 11 o'clock—but that I would read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he had to say. I did so. And disappointed as I was during the debate at the line of argument adduced, at the irrelevancies—and, over and above all that, concerned as I was with the disappointment and frustration in the industry—I was even more disappointed when I read my hon. Friend's observations.
  I submit, with respect, that I would be in order if I were to repeat very briefly the questions I put to my right hon. Friend on that occasion. I repeat that these were not my questions but questions addressed to me by the people who matter—the miners themselves; miners, living in a condition of insecurity and unaware of what was to happen.
  My first question was: how many pit closures are likely to take place in 1968? That question obviously concerns miners not only in my constiuency but throughout the coalfields. Not a word was said in that debate about the possibility of further closures, and no answer was furnished by the Minister to my question. We are therefore still in the dark. We are unable to tell our miner constituents how many closures are likely to take place in the next 12 months—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is turning an Amendment debate into a Second Reading debate. I must tell him that his remarks would be much more appropriate on an Amendment to Clause 2—which, in any case, deals with

  1215
  pit closures. I therefore hope that he will defer his remarks in that respect to that Amendment.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. We are debating a Clause which deals with the extension of the Board's borrowing powers. The amount involved is an additional £200 million, and we are seeking to reduce that amount. Inherent in all these arguments is the length of time the money will last, and I say, with great respect to the Chair, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is only dealing with the important matter of how long the money will last. Surely that is in order.
  The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in this respect, that we are dealing with an Amendment which, in effect, reduces the borrowing powers stipulated in the Clause. This limits the debate to the question of the reduction. It may be more appropriate to talk about the total borrowing powers on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but the effect of the Amendment is to reduce the debate, rather than allow a stand-part debate.
  Mr. Shinwell: My purpose is to say that unless I have from the Minister a satisfactory reply to the questions I put on Second Reading, and to which I received no reply, I am opposed to further borrowing powers for the National Coal Board. Therefore, I am in order, Mr. Irving—or at least it seems so to me.
  The Deputy Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman puts it in that way, he is certainly in order. What he cannot do is to elaborate on the questions he put on Second Reading.
  Mr. Shinwell: How right you are, Mr. Irving. I naturally accept what you say.
  I also asked the Minister what assurance he could provide of alternative employment before the closures took place. Is not that an important question? My miner colleagues here will agree that it is a most important question. The subject is on the lips of almost every miner who is afraid of redundancy. There was no answer to that, except to refer us to the Board of Trade but the Board of Trade did not take part in that debate. So we
  1216
  require another debate for that purpose. Unless I get a satisfactory answer, I am even prepared to vote against the provision of further borrowing powers for the National Coal Board, because in my judgment unless we can get satisfactory replies the Board does not deserve to be furnished with further borrowing powers.
  7.30 p.m.
  Ever since the Coal Board was created—and I was responsible for its creation on behalf of the Attlee Cabinet when I was Minister of Fuel and Power—the Board has been seeking to modernise the coal mining industry. I am sure that I am within the knowledge of my miner colleagues when I say that hundreds of millions of pounds have been expended in modernisation. The most modern machinery, the most modern equipment and the most modern methods have been deployed at great expense, and many of the pits upon which vast sums of money have been expended for this purpose have been closed. I am not prepared to provide the Board with more money for modernisation for this purpose unless I have an assurance that these rapid—much too rapid—closures are to cease.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people who owned these pits at the time when he carried out the nationalisation have been paid unforeseen profits for them?
  Mr. Shinwell: That is another point, but it would be completely out of order to discuss it. The question of spending money on modernisation is not out of order. I am very much concerned about providing Lord Robens and his colleagues on the Board with further borrowing powers, many more millions for modernisation, unless I have an assurance that the money will be used not only for the benefit of the country but also for the purpose of conferring certain social and industrial advantages on the men employed in the industry. I received no answer to the question I put on that occasion.
  We also ought to know what the Board's intentions are. For what are they to use this money? I have suggested that the Board intends to use it for modernisation, but it may use it for some other reason. We ought to know what the reason is before we vote this

  1217
  money. In Second Reading a great deal was said about productivity, greater and higher productivity. No doubt many of these millions we are to vote for the Board will be used for the purpose of that form of modernisation which leads to higher productivity. I want an assurance that higher productivity, sometimes described as greater efficiency, should not cause greater unemployment among miners. These are very simple issues. These are the kind of questions which concern t he miners themselves. They are the kind of questions which are talked about in working men's clubs and at the street corner. We are entitled to have satisfactory assurances on these issues.
  I refer to the nature of the answers I received during the Second Reading debate. I have no personal feeling against the Parliamentary Secretary, any more than I have against the Minister, but I was astounded when I read what he had said. I have heard a great many platitudes in this House and clichés galore, but this was the most classic example of clichés which I have read for a long time. I am almost afraid to read them out. I do not want to do the Parliamentary Secretary any harm, but some of these statements were in the form of jargon straight from the Civil Service.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Bureaucrats.
  Mr. Shinwell: This is the way civil servants talk, but I am quite satisfied that some of my miner friends in my constituency would describe this as Cockney jargon. I dislike this language intensely. I shall not bother to read it out for my colleagues can read it for themselves. If they go over that ground they will discover that not a single question relating to the conditions of the miners, their insecurity and their sentiments and how they feel, was answered. Perhaps that was not the fault of my hon. Friend. Perhaps he had nothing very satisfactory to say. If so, we shall have to go on asking these questions.
  I do not want to proceed further on this line because I get into a bad temper over this business. Why not? I go to my constituency and I am accosted by miners at meetings and other functions and sometimes when I visit some of the working men's clubs. Oh, the language they use! I am certain that in this
  1218
  respectable assembly it would be completely out of order and quite unparliamentary.
  Mr. McGuire: It would liven it up.
  Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) suggests that if I used the language it would enliven the proceedings, but that is not my intention. I feel strongly about this matter, not only because of what my miner constituents say to me and the advice they give me, but because I have an idea of what the coal mining industry could produce and I am afraid of what might happen in future. I hope that my right hon. Friend in replying to this part of the debate will at least give one answer. That is an answer to the first question I put—how many pits are likely to be closed in the next 12 months? How many will be closed in the County of Durham, how many in the North-East and elsewhere, and in Wales—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: And in Scotland.
  Mr. Shinwell: —and in Scotland. We are entitled to know. Could we also have an assurance that before any pits are about to be closed the men will be consulted and have an opportunity of expressing themselves? I know that there have been consultations with the National Union of Mineworkers, but somehow that does not percolate down to pit level. The men are entitled to have some information about this because it affects their future. I do not want to proceed further. It may be that I have been slightly out of order; but it is sometimes worth while being out of order in this assembly to enable one to express one's sentiments and do a good turn for one's constituents. I hope that, as a result of what I have said, even if I have been somewhat harsh and aggressive in my expression, my right hon. Friend will make an effort to reply to the questions I have put.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I wish at once to allude to the speech by the Minister in introducing the Second Reading of the Bill. He said, as reported in column 249 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "I am trying to make an uncontroversial speech."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 249.]

  1219
  Whoever heard of an uncontroversial speech on the coal industry? I shall not emulate, nor seek to emulate, the example of the right hon. Gentleman. I intend to make an intensely controversial speech, not necessarily in the same vein as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), though we have a good deal in common, about the future of coal mining in Britain and the use of coal as our basic indigenous fuel in preference to other alternative fuels, notably imported fuels.
  I shall address myself, first, to the chronic inaccuracies of forecasting by the members of the Coal Board. Never in the history of national or international finance has there been such a disgraceful exhibition of miscalculation and wastage of the nation's finance as has been manifested by the Coal Board in the past three years.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten Ferranti.
  Mr. Swain: And Blue Streak.
  Sir G. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I shall give way.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has had a serious lapse of memory. Private enterprise has made enormous miscalculations resulting in great damage to the public welfare. My immediate response was to mention Ferranti—and that is God's truth.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I shall not call in aid the Almighty, but I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will remain silent while I complete my argument. The Ferranti case involved £4 million, and it was a claim in respect of excess profits. My complaint against the Coal Board involves loss and wastage in excess of £100 million, 25 times as great as the alleged surplus or excess profits in the Ferranti case.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: And on what capital?
  Sir G. Nabarro: There is this further notable distinction. Ferranti operates at a profit. The Coal Board has operated at a chronic and continuing loss.
  Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten, as he is apt to do, our ex-
  1220
  Perience with Blue Streak. The original estimate was £60 million. It ultimately cost £600 million of taxpayers' money, and it never flew once.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I shall deal with all these matters on an appropriate occasion. The losses by the Coal Board, which are the nub of the Amendment, are vastly in excess of all these other matters, even in aggregation.
  Mr. Woodrow Wyatt rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: A moment or two, and then I shall give way. I always give way to the hon. Member for Bosworth. I wish to finish this part of my speech tracing the financial course of events since 1965 and the Coal Industry Act of that year. Under the 1965 Act, the borrowing powers of the Coal Board were set at a maximum of £750 million, being increased under that Act by approximately £250 million. The Minister then said that the additional borrowing powers would last the Board for all purposes until March, 1971. He now asks the Committee for more money in December, 1967. The degree of Ministerial error was 40 months, or three and one-third years.
  The average businessman in private enterprise might make a mistake in calculation of capital expenditure equal, in chronological terms, to one month in budgeting one year ahead. But here is the Coal Board spending £250 million of additional borrowing provided under the 1965 Act by December, 1968, instead of by March, 1971. Am I guilty of hyperbole in suggesting that this is the most chronic and disastrous wastage of public funds which the House has ever witnessed?
  Mr. Wyatt: I take it that the hon. Gentleman objects because he regards these losses as a sort of subsidy to the coal industry. Why does he not object similarly to the much larger subsidies paid to agriculture, and paid for precisely the same reason, to save imports? We do not want to import more foodstuffs than necessary, and we do not want to import too much fuel oil, do we?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I knew that the hon. Gentleman, who has ants in his pants, would jump in too early. He sits for a

  1221
  mining constituency. He ought to know the facts. He ought to be able to tell the miners in minute detail about the finances of their industry, but he is ignorant of the facts. Since 1965, until this year, there have been no losses on current account by the coal industry. The industry has been operating roughly on a basis of no profit and no loss.
  7.45 p.m.
  Where has all the money gone? It has gone probably in the fashion shown by the right hon. Member for Easington, in pouring Good money after bad, into the modernisation of pits now to be shut down, into an industry which is declining very rapidly—too fast and too far, for my liking.
  We are asked to put another £200 million into the industry. How long is this amount to last? It is to last for about 16 months. That is all. Perhaps, the Minister will confirm that when he replies. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding dissent. He has already been castigated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, who spoke of clichés and unsatisfactory answers. I shall not add to the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman, but there was no better example given in earlier rebates on the coal industry of the fashion in which the House of Commons is fobbed off by bureaucratic and inexact answers than the Parliamentary Secretary's answer on 18th July last to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
  At 8 o'clock in the morning, after an all-night sitting, my right hon. Friend intervened to say:
  "The Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with the point that the Minister's predecessor, in November, 1965 expected that £750 million would last through to 1971. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is just the extra 12 million tons of stock which explains the change in the Minister's prediction?"
  To that the Parliamentary Secretary gave this grossly inconclusive and futile reply:
  No. The point is that, if there is a different figure and a higher rate of run-down, as has occurred since 1965, that leads to greater expenditure over a shorter period. Without going onto detail, that is the general answer on that point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 2027–8.]
  What in the name of glory does that means? Everything the hon. Gentleman said in his reply might have accounted for
  1222
  a few million pounds, nothing like £200 million.
  The Coal Board has been running at no profit and no loss for two years. Where has the £250 million gone which we voted two years ago, in the autumn of 1965? It has not gone into revenue account to offset losses. It is all hushed up in the accounts and not precisely accounted for, but I believe that the right hon. Member for Easington is nearer the truth.
  I turn now to the future. I have expressed my lack of confidence in the financial budgeting of the Board. My lack of confidence in the Ministerial parent has always been manifest. Any Minister who says in a coal debate that he will make an uncontroversial speech destroys any vestige of confidence which I might have had in him.
  The right hon. Member for Easington did not do his homework. Had he done so and read the White Paper, "Fuel Policy", in the great detail in which I read it he would have found in paragraph 131 a detailed account of what the sums of money in the Clause are to be devoted to in the next 16 months, which is the period of their expenditure. This is of the greatest importance if we are to economise in public funds. The paragraph says:
  "1. Outstanding long-term borrowings March, 1967 … £610 million".
  £610 million. That is the cumulative long-term borrowing figure at the time of the presentation of the White Paper. It goes on:
  "2. Additional long-term borrowings 1967–68 … £90 million".
  That makes it up to the £700 million the expenditure of which the Minister has virtually authorised already.
  It continues:
  "3. Provision for day-to-day and seasonal fluctuations in temporary borrowings for working capital … £70 million.
  4 Net capital investment in collieries and ancillary activities"—
  that is highly suspect—
  "in 1968–69 to 1970– … £60 million.
  5. Additional coal stocks … £25 million.
  6. Provision for deficits … £50 million.
  7. All other contingencies … £45 million".
  The Committee should give its attention to those last three items, which make up a total of £120 million out of the

  1223
  additional sums to be voted under the Clause. Is it the Ministerial intention that coal stocks shall continue to rise unremittingly, through a further unsold surplus of coal? If so. the figure of £25 million budgeted in the White Paper divided by 100s. 7d. per ton, which is the 1967 average price of coal at the pit head, would account for an additional 5 million tons of undistributed stocks. As there are at present 28 million tons of undistributed stocks, the Coal Board is evidently budgeting for 33 million tons, to which must be added a further 20 million tons this autumn of distributed stocks, or a total of 53 million tons of coal unsold and unused at a given period. I suppose that that is in the next 12 months, which is approximately within the ambit of the financial provisions.
  Is the Minister telling the Committee that during the next 16 months the Coal Board will lose £50 million? The Bill goes only 16 months forward According to the White Paper, there is provision for deficits of £50 million. Will the House of Commons countenance the Coal Board's losing money over the next 16 months like a drunken sailor? I believe that that remark is strictly in order and very appropriate, having regard to contemporary circumstance.
  Only 1½ hours ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about our passing through a critical period; only a week ago the Government were calling for the utmost economy in public expenditure. This is public expenditure. Is the Committee to vote £50 million tonight for Coal Board losses in the next 16 months?
  Mr. Marsh: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flight. But I am not sure where he gets his 16-month point from. The Bill is perfectly clear that we are talking about March, 1971. What is possible is that in the meantime a Minister might come back for an extension of the order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to think it right and proper.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Sixteen months is nearer the truth. The Coal Board has run through £250 million in two years, with a declining industry. It is now proposed to continue to run the industry down at the same rate. If £250 million
  1224
  was lost in two years, the £200 million will last for about 16 months. It may be 20 months, but it will be roughly within that range. I do not accept that it will last until 1971. It was the Minister's predecessor who estimated in 1965 that the £250 million would last until 1971, and the Board is already out of money after just two years.
  But the point I am trying to impress on the right hon. Member for Easington and all the coal-mining hon. Members opposite, who give general support to the Bill, that only £60 million of the £200 million is to be spent on genuine colliery improvements and increases in productivity and efficiency. Nearly all the remainder of the money is to finance additional stocks of coal, to finance losses by the Board, and for ancillary purposes, which is a pretty disgraceful state of affairs having regard to the dismal and inaccurate record of the Board in financial budgeting on earlier occasions.
  I want to ask the Minister one or two more points before I leave the financial provisions. There can be no doubt that he is budgeting for an increase in coal stocks. At what point do we stop putting coal on the ground? At the end of the year there will be, say, 30 million tons of undistributed stocks. That is worth £160 million at book value and it is locked up capital. The coal cannot be sold in this country, and it goes on increasing. We have nothing but pious hopes from the Ministry that at some future, indeterminate date he may reduce these coal stocks.
  In my Second Reading speech he pooh-poohed my peroration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry to be alliterative, but that is excellent alliteration. Repetition is to follow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Marvellous."] It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to say that I am marvellous. I want to finish this sentence. What is the Minister to do with all that coal? He cannot sell it in this country. I asked him what action was being taken to secure additional export markets. He pooh-poohed the question and said, "Oh, of course, immediately after devaluation a Coal Board team was despatched to Europe." Hon. Members opposite asked me if I did not know that coal contracts in Western Europe were long-term contracts. But

  1225
  none of the money under the Clause would be wanted if the liability of 160 million tons of coal stocks were eroded and finally liquidated.
  How long is the coal to remain there? More pertinent, how long has much of it been there? Looking back over my records, I believe that 10 million tons has been lying on the same tips for many years—unsold, deteriorating, poor in quality and not worth the value in the books.
  I wonder whether the Coal Board's accountants are compiling this figure at the lower cost or market value. I doubt it. None of the money under this Clause would be wanted if the Minister displayed some energy in the disposal of these excessive stocks of unsold coal and if it cannot be sold at market price my advice is simple and straightforward.
  The Americans are putting coal into Europe today at under 100s. per ton c.i.f. We,t. European ports. It would be cheaper for this nation to "flog" 20 million tons of its unwanted coal on our tips to European customers at, say, 80s. a ton post-devaluation rather than keep it longer on the ground in this country against some future hypothetical demand for the coal.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, in many European countries, the coal industries are faced with the same difficulties as we face here? Does he think that they would take kindly to the dumping of British coal at a time when they are trying to find jobs for their own miners?
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is naive if he believes that I have not looked up the answers to all these posers before I started. Of course the European coal mining countries have surpluses of bituminous coal but this year the Americans have landed in Western Europe 21·7 million tons of Coal from the United States.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Under long-term contracts.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No—under contracts mostly expiring by next May, some of them expiring in January and some in February. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) scoffs at a Tory Member who is notoriously a
  1226
  friend of every coal miner in Britain. I cannot understand him. I am trying to demonstrate to him how to make the coal miner's job more secure by selling the products of his labour. The hon. Member scoffs at my salesmanship activities.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realize—I am certain he does—that, when there were coal stocks under the Tory Government of 50 million tons, there were no sales on the Continent because of certain reasons, which he knows—that our industries did not want our coal to be Sold abroad at a cheap price to our competitors.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member is talking the most drivelling rot. He does not understand the most elementary economics of the fuel and power industries. In the years in which the Tories held fairly high stocks, of about 20 million tons, it was in relation to a mining output in excess of 220 million tons. Under the present Government, 174 million tons were produced last year and 165 million tons this year. The Tory Party mined the coal. The Labour Party has let the coal miners down. I want to know the answer to the future of these stocks from the Minister, because my question is short, succinct and valid. None of the money under this Clause would be wanted if he dealt with the 160 million £s tied up today in surplus coal stocks.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, but on this occasion how could he justify selling coal to the Italian and German steel works at 80s, a ton when steel works in Scotland have to pay at present 130s, a ton? Why not have the experiment of selling more by lower prices here?
  Sir G. Nabarro: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. The Government would do far better to sell this surplus coal to Scottish steel works at a lower than cost price in contemporary circumstances rather than pay all the costs of keeping it in stock. I say to my hon. Friend that the Government would be far better advised financially to follow a policy of that sort than building advance factories in Scotland and the North-East which are not being occupied.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain

  1227
  one thing. During the Second Reading debate, he wanted to sell the coal to Europe at 88s. a ton. Where has the 8s. difference gone?
  Sir G. Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman bursts out in a cacophony of cackling, perhaps he will read on in my speech. I said, in the vernacular, "flog it". I will wager that there is not a coal miner in this Committee who does not know what "flog it" means. "Sell at the best price"—that is what "flog" means. Get 88s. per ton if you can; if not, get 80s. But even 80s. C.I.F. West European ports would be a far better return than leaving these 30 million tons of coal lying on the ground for an indefinite period ahead.
  Mr. Shinwell: Hear, hear.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." This is the nub of the Bill. Compensation to miners is not the nub of the Bill. The major part of the Bill is the borrowing powers and the Tories have views on finance as well as Labour Members sitting for mining constituencies. That magnificent writer on fuel and power economics, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, energy editor of the Financial Times, wrote this morning:
  "The Central Electricity Generating Board has already been waiting for some time for a reply to its application to build a nuclear power station at Seaton Carew near Hartlepool, and there is no sign of an official announcement."
  I want that power station to be fired by the coal produced in the Durham coalfield. I have proclaimed that loud and clear all over the country as the friend of the coal miners, however much it makes the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) writhe.
  I say to the Minister that we have waited for long weary months while this controversy over the Seaton Carew power station has gone on. It will involve the Coal Board in a certain amount of capital expenditure if it is coal-fired. May we have an answer before the Bill leaves this House? Is the station to be coal-fired or nuclear-powered, because a part of the expenditure entailed, if it is a coal-fired will fall on the National Coal Board and, therefore, within the provisions of Clause 1? Will he give us an answer? If he will not give us an answer, perhaps he will say that he will not.
  Mr. Marsh rose—
  Sir G. Nabarro: It is nice of the right hon. Gentleman to get up.
  Mr. Marsh: I was merely twitching.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I must say that the contempt with which the right hon. Gentleman responds to the legitimate demands from the miners in Durham and the non-miners in South Worcestershire ought to bring the opprobrium of the House on his head. Were I a Minister responding to coal miners, I would try to understand their legitimate fears in present conditions and the greatest psychological blunder the right hon. Gentleman could make would be to build a nuclear power station on a major British coalfield. I hope that he does not, because coal would be far better for the purpose. I hope that he will give an answer to my question before the Bill leaves this House.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to Amendment No. 30, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, which deals precisely with this question?
  In Clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert:
  Provided that the Minister may withhold permission for the construction of an electricity generating station using any fuel other than coal, and shall take into consideration the social and economic effects on a particular area or district caused by the reduction in the number of persons employed in the coal industry within a thirty mile radius of the site of the aforesaid electricity generating station.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as always. I am not sure whether Amendment No. 30 has been selected but I will not trespass on your generosity, Sir Ronald. I see that you have become a little impatient with me. I merely respond by thanking the right hon. Member for Easington and I hope that we may be favoured by the selection at a propitious moment of that Amendment, so that we may discuss the question of this power station in greater depth and detail.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member has been very patient and I am grateful to him for giving way again. I remind him that his name is on an Amendment seeking to reduce the borrowing power of the Board. Later, we are to deal with a Clause providing

  1229
  £45 million in subsidy to the Central Electricity Generating Board, other generating boards, and area gas boards for the use of coal where they would sooner use some other fuel. That is Clause 6. If the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is accepted and Seton Carew is a coal-fired station, the C.E.G.B. will require to be paid any difference in generating costs by the Minister and the £45 million we are to vote under Clause 6 will probably have to be doubled.
  Sir C. Nabarro: That is a spurious argument from Orpington. The short answer to Orpington is, of course, that, in the case of Seaton Carew, generating costs per kilowatt hour of electricity from a major coal-fired station using 500 megawatt turbo alternators would be cheaper than the use of nuclear fuel.
  Mr. Lubbock: Absolute nonsense.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman continues to bawl, "Absolute nonsense" at me. He is entitled to his view. I profoundly believe to be true what I have said.
  With those few comments of a preliminary nature, I will return later in our debates, after the Minister has answered seriatim each of the points I have put to him, I invite hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to join my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and myself in the Lobby if we do not obtain satisfaction. I want to know, in a time of extreme stringency in capital and finance, how this huge additional sum of £200 million is to be expended. Alternatively, I would bring the Minister back to the House for financial accountability earlier than 16 months ahead.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Swain: I shall not say, as I did last time, that it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Listening to him and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I was reminded of Evelyn Waugh's words:
  "When one is in politics one must inevitably associate with some frightful people."
  Having listened to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South make a speech based mainly on other people's interventions, those words have been more than confirmed for me.
  1230
  I shall address myself to the Amendment and I warn the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, the hon. Member for Yeovil and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that if they want answers from the Minister then, judging by the way they have been talking this last hour and a half, they will perhaps have to wait until 5 a.m. to get them, because I hope that every one of my colleagues speaks on this wrecking Amendment. If we had done the same as those hon. Members—so-called—in the last debate, and read the Minister's reply in HANSARD next day instead of waiting to hear it, the Bill would not have had a Second Reading. It would have been counted out by the Tories.
  We stuck it, and if they are prepared to stick it until one o'clock tomorrow afternoon, so shall we in the miners' group. If they want the answers, they will have to stay with Tom Swain, M.P. and the other members of the miners' group until we have finished debating the Clause. If they like, they can do what they did on Second Reading and go home when they have made their speeches and leave the "slaves" to carry on the debate.
  I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment out of hand. It is clearly a wrecking Amendment.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor indicated dissent.
  Mr. Swain: I wish that hon. Members who disagree would get up and do so instead of mumbling like a crocodile with the toothache.
  All I regret about the Clause is that the total figure is not higher. If it is reduced by £50 million, as the Amendment suggests, the Coal Board's total liability will be spread over a smaller number of pits, which will mean more money in the long term to finance the liabilities. I wish that the Minister had categorically told the House that the Government would write off a tremendous amount of the Board's capital liability. My right hon. Friend who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote off £415 million in 1965. Assuming a gradual decline in mining, the benefit of that £415 million write-off

  1231
  would have been considerable, but circumstances and events beyond the control of Lord Robens or anybody else overtook the industry.
  I must applaud Lord Robens for the magnificent case which he put up in his effort to substantiate the argument that the industry could be fully viable. Incidentally, his estimates of manpower and tonnage in mining in 1980 were no wilder or more ridiculous than the estimates of the Government of the hon. Member for Yeovil in 1955, when they said that the industry should produce 240 million tons by 1970. The industry's capital liabilities today are as heavy as they are as a consequence of its capitalisation to produce 240 million tons under the terms of reference given to it by Tory Ministers of the time.
  The industry is still suffering from the effects of that over-capitalisation and of the forecasts of the Tory Government in 1959, or as expounded in the "Plan for Coal" of 1955. They were hopelessly wrong to the tune of nearly 60 million tons of coal. Hon. Members opposite criticise Lord Robens, but he only did the sums from the figures provided by his teacher, and if the teacher is to criticise the pupil for arriving at the wrong equations from the teacher's figures, I wonder where we are getting.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South made his hypocritical statements about being the friend of the miners. As I have said before—God shield me from my friends if he is one of them. Our old friend "Cross-bencher" will have two more allies to link up in his column on Sunday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. What a team to go to bat on!
  Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend did not make observations of that kind when, after the miners group had decided on a course of action, he associated himself with me and other hon. Members representing mining constituencies to bring pressure on the Government to withdraw the White Paper.
  Mr. Swain: I am glad my right hon. Friend has interjected. We called on the other miners not to bring pressure on the Government, but to make a commonsense
  1232
  case to the Government to explain why the title of the White Paper should be altered, and my right hon. Friend's constituents have had as much pleasure from the results of those negotiations as have those of North-East Derbyshire or any other mining constituencies.
  My right hon. Friend has mentioned the closed shop on other occasions. In the mining group we are a closed shop. We have put down many Amendments and I hope that my hon. Friends will speak to them. The miners group's discussions are independent because we are not inhibited by the language of university dons; we do not suffer from the inconsistencies of the economists; our brains do not have to undergo the clinical diagnoses of the doctors and we do not have to sit and listen to the lectures of the teachers whose job mainly was to put sums on the board for kiddies after someone else had provided the answers. Occasionally, we have had to suffer the interferences of junior Ministers, but they are necessary and we have been able to tolerate them at most times. I am glad that we are an independent group.
  Other wrecking Amendments are suggested, but this, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South said, is the nub of the whole argument. Without the total amount provided by Clause 1, the Coal Board cannot operate its proper fuel policy. That is why there is such an attempt to wreck the Clause. Our Amendments would be useless if by any mischance this Amendment were carried. I appeal to my hon. Friends, when at about three o'clock in the morning the Division is called, to troop through the Lobby and give the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South the biggest tab dusting he has had in his life.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was one of the most unfortunate of the evening. This has been a useful and constructive debate so far and in describing this as a wrecking Amendment the hon. Gentleman was extremely unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who made serious and constructive contributions.

  1233
  There was only one thing on which I agreed with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swain: The only thing about which the hon. Gentleman agrees with me is the date.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman referred to those who are to be slaves this evening. It is unfortunate that we should have to discuss this matter so late, because it may not be possible to give these issues the consideration which they deserve. I know that the Minister specialises in late nights. I remember that we had a few of them on the Steel Bill when we had a Parliamentary Secretary falling asleep. I am sure that the present Parliamentary Secretary will not do that, but we ought not to discuss these important matters at so late an hour.
  Every speaker so far has referred to £200 million of additional borrowing power. If it were only £200 million, my hon. Friends and I would still object to such an amount without the normal discipline of returning to the House, but a careful reading of the White Paper shows the figure to be more than £200 million. This is made clear on page 52 when the White Paper shows that the Coal Board is nearing the statutory limit of £750 million because of seasonal circumstances. Obviously, stocks fluctuate and to that extent borrowing powers or limits fluctuate. If we take a limit of £750 million at a time of the year when stocks are extremely high for seasonal reasons, asking for a further £200 million is to that extent asking for a little more leeway.
  But that apart, from our experience of the Coal Board we know that to give £200 million borrowing powers to take the Board up to 1971 is allowing far too much leeway. It would be utter madness at this time, and I emphasise "time". The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East gave the impression that we were trying to curtail the industry's necessary capital investment, but that is not our invention. We do not want to provide a blank cheque for capital investment and borrowing powers when so many of the Board's decisions and estimates have proved to be wrong or inaccurate.
  I was influenced a great deal by Report No. 12 of the Prices and Incomes Board. Hon. Members may have reservations about the Incomes Board
  1234
  and its rôle in fixing wages and determining wage policies, but we can all agree that its reports have been of a high quality. Certainly Report No. 12 on coal prices is extremely interesting.
  Paragraphs 62 and 63 of that Report say some alarming and damaging things about the Coal Board. It talks about its investment policy and says in effect that terrible mistakes have been made, wonder whether it is wise for us to give complete freedom on borrowing powers up till 1971 when we see what actually happened in the years which are referred to.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Eadie: Will the hon. Gentleman say what mistakes have been made?
  Mr. Taylor: I was coming to that. It is in paragraphs 62 and 63. I will give the hon. Member the Report after the debate is finished. It is a good Report.
  Mr. Eadie: I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that I made a speech on the same Report. He should tell the Committee that that Report demonstrates that it costs more to distribute coal than to produce it.
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell): Order. Not unless it is related to the borrowing powers of the Bill.
  Mr. Taylor: The point which the hon. Member has made is correct, and the final conclusion of the Report is that there should be an inquiry into distribution prices.
  On the question of borrowing powers, I wonder whether it is wise to give such substantial borrowing powers when we see the record of investment outlined in paragraph 62:
  "First, investment has proved excessive in relation to market demand."
  When it talks about the estimates it says:
  "These have proved to be over-estimates. By basing its estimates on present prices and costs the Coal Board has failed to make due allowance for the changing competitive position of coal. The industry, as a result, has been faced with a burden of depreciation and other fixed costs higher than the market warranted."
  It also mentions:
  "In order to secure a better control over investment in the future we consider that the

  1235
  Government should assume greater responsibility for identifying and examining more critically the vital assumptions on which the forecasts of yield on new investment are based and should equip itself technically to do this."
  I know that the Minister has made some very real attempts to get more information. Probably one of the difficulties that we have had in the coal industry is that we have not had all the information.
  When we are considering borrowing powers, surely one thing which the House should do is to make sure that from time to time we have an opportunity to review the situation in the coal industry, to review investment policy, and see just how accurate are the estimates which have been made. Quite frankly, if we are to give what amounts to a blank cheque on borrowing powers up to 1971, even if this estimate is accurate—[Interruption.]—know that my hon. Friend has stated his opinion, and I respect his opinion, because he is usually right. In fact, his record of making estimates has been extremely accurate.
  Even if we assume on this one occasion that the Government's estimate be right, are we going to give them this carte blanche up to 1971?
  Mention is also made in this Report of the Board's estimates about 1970. This was published in February, 1966. It says that the result will not be as the Board hoped at 200 million tons, but probably 170 to 180 million tons. When we consider 170 to 180 million tons being mentioned in February, 1966, and then we have the Government coming along with a White Paper in which they say they are doing the coal industry a favour in trying to get to 155 million tons, I think it is crystal clear that the estimates which have been made have been based on wrong assumptions or have been very wild or else perhaps have been deliberately optimistic on the part of the Coal Board and have been unnecessarily accepted by the Minister.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: When the hon. Gentleman makes reference to a Labour Government, will he bear in mind that we were all led astray—including the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—during the early 1950s, when we were controlled by a Conservative Government.
  1236
  We were led to believe that we should consume 250 million tons of coal by 1965. One can well understand the reason why the Coal Board to some extent has been led astray by such a Government over the period of 13 years.
  Mr. Taylor: In the early 1950s I think I was still at school. I certainly was not in the House.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I was here in 1952 and 1953, the period to which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) is referring. That was before nuclear energy and before the oil programme launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). The 250 million tons that the hon. Member for Normanton is referring to is 250 million tons of coal equivalent estimated, not bituminous coal.
  Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me out. When we have had such major technical developments in nuclear power and also in oil-fired stations, it is unfair to say that estimates should be entirely accurate. Even if we said that this figure of 250 million tons had proved to be wrong, surely it is an even greater error to move from 200 million tons three years ago to 180 tons in February, 1966, and then to a White Paper talking about 155 million tons, as though this was some kind of major advance.
  I would suggest that this record does not necessarily prove that we have idiots in the Coal Board or in the Ministry of Power. It shows two things: first, that estimates are very difficult indeed to make, and, secondly, that all our estimates in the past have proved to be wrong and perhaps disastrously so. In these circumstances, is it not utter madness for the Government to suggest that we should now lay down our policies up to 1971, or at least give the Board borrowing powers until then? Surely what is required are frequent, if not constant reviews, and I suggest that the Government would be wiser to give the additional borrowing powers—
  Mr. Ogden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and other of his colleagues who have congratulated the Chairman of the Board on his forecast, and have criticised the

  1237
  Government for not making more money available for the social consequences of it?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in this industry, and when he makes estimates they usually prove to be correct, but I think the point that he was making was that it was as well to make realistic estimates in future, if it was possible to do so. My point is that I doubt whether such realistic estimates can be made, and for this reason it is important that we should regularly review the position.
  I am a relatively new Member, but it occurs to me that one of the few opportunities which we get of discussing the affairs of the coal industry is when we are presented with Orders dealing with increased borrowing powers. Days are set aside to discuss the nationalised industries, but there are only a few such days, and not all of them are devoted to discussing, the coal industry. This proposal gives us an opportunity to review the situation in the coal industry from time to time. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite be satisfied to know that if the Government's estimate was right we might be deprived of an opportunity to discuss the position of the coal industry some years ahead?
  There are other questions which need to be answered. For example, is it wise to give borrowing powers up to 1971. If the Government's forecast is right, and if many major questions of policy will have to be determined in the future? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South touched upon one which is very important to Scotland, namely, the pricing policy of the coal industry. How can we in the House have any control over pricing policy, and the fundamental principles involved in it, if we do not have frequent opportunities to consider the borrowing powers of the industry?
  I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend talking about the possibility of selling coal at 80s. or 88s. a ton. The steel works of Scotland have to pay 133s. 6d. per ton for coking coal. I suggest that the Minister should consider the possibility of having a uniform price for coal throughout the country, to see what effect this would have on coal consumption. The Government are doing what they
  1238
  think is best to encourage regional development, but the plain fact is that the differential in fuel prices is a real ball and chain around the Scottish economy, and that of other areas, too.
  In Yorkshire, coking coal can be bought for 100s. a ton, whereas, as I have said, in Scotland we pay 133s. 6d. for it. It is therefore clear that our heavy industry starts at a real disadvantage. Even in Wales such coal can be bought at about 115s. a ton. The effect of this increased cost is felt throughout the whole of Scottish industry. Our electricity board has to pay £1 a ton more for its coal than is paid by the English board, and this has a major effect on the price of electricity in Scotland. The Report of the Scottish Gas Board, published only a few weeks ago, said that the additional charge cost it £300,000. This is the kind of fundamental policy on which we in this Committee should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion.
  Mr. McGuire: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the position would be worse if we were to depend on nuclear power? Hunterston A is costing an enormous amount. Would not the position be worse if the pits were to be closed as a result of not giving them the amount of money which we intend to give under the Bill?
  Mr. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Hunterston A, which has proved to be slightly disastrous from the point of view of cost. We look for better things from Hunterston B when it comes along. But the point is that in Scotland we have this terrible problem of differential prices. We should like an opportunity to consider the matter from time to time by discussing the Orders on increased borrowing.
  I do not want hon. Members to think that the intention of those who put forward the Amendment is to restrict necessary capital expenditure by the coal industry. That is certainly not our intention, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil made it absolutely clear. All that we are concerned to have is an opportunity from time to time to review the progress and the capital spending of the coal industry. If we sanction this vast sum of £200 million, which could mean a three or four years' delay, we will

  1239
  not have that opportunity. I know that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) takes a great interest in power matters. It should be in his interest to ensure that we have the opportunity to review progress from time to time. That is extremely necessary, and I hope that it will happen.
  As the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) said, this is not only a problem of big business but a very human problem. We have the difficulties with the National Union of Mineworkers. From what I have seen and heard, this is a good union as unions go. But the problem is keeping in touch with the average person who is affected by closures. If a man's job is affected, clearly it is right that the Government should be able to give real assurances.
  This brings us back to the question of borrowing powers. Would the Minister tell us, if we do not accept the Amendment, precisely when we shall have an opportunity to debate the progress of the coal industry to see whether all the wonderful estimates prove to be correct? It would be in the interests of the industry and of democracy if we did not give such large increases in borrowing but gave, as we suggest, £50 million less. If I had tabled the Amendment, the sum would have been much smaller.
  We must regularly review progress in the coal industry and not consider it once every three or four years. For that reason, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I wish to make it clear that those who put it forward do not intend to restrict capital investment if it can be proved to be necessary, helpful and in the national interest. It would, however, be utter folly to give such complete carte blanche for so many years as is provided for in the Clause. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Ogden: I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on one point, namely, that it should be a regular feature of out Parliamentary year that one day a year we debate the National Coal Board and the coal industry. That is a point which we have made several times before. However, I could hardly agree with the hon. Gentleman's remark that this had been a useful and interesting debate until my
  1240
  hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) came in. I am wondering whether Radio 4 is being piped through to the microphones of hon. Members opposite and that we cannot hear it.
  There is some formality coming into our debates on the coal industry concerning the Members who will be called and the order in which they will be called. They are not pre-ordained, but at least there is a certain amount of predetermination. If we were betting Members on this side of the Committee as against those on the benches opposite, we would say that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would get up, more in sorrow than in anger, and make a bitter complaint about the time at which the debate was being held, as he did tonight, and that he would send out a cry for the Leader of the House and that shortly afterwards my right hon. Friend would arrive, as he did tonight.
  Mr. Peyton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not responsible for this state of affairs. The reactions which I very modestly put forward were caused entirely by the conduct of the Leader of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not the perspicacity to see that.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ogden: I am saying that precisely this happens. Despite what the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the debate has followed its normal pattern. Whether it is 11 o'clock on a Friday morning or two o'clock on a Tuesday night, there is a cry for the Leader of the House, and eventually we get around to the subject of the debate. The hon. Member for Yeovil has made a number of personal attacks and is present to hear my criticism of him. Still ignoring his Amendment, he makes a bitter attack on the Chairman of the Coal Board and gives one-tenth of his time to his Amendment. He has failed tonight to convince me that it would be worthwhile to reduce the expenditure.
  Then the debate progresses from Yeovil to Worcestershire, South. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on his knowledge of the industry. Basically, he is friendly to the miners, and I agree with him on several points. I congratulate him on his

  1241
  ability to catch the eye of the Chair—this is no criticism of the occupant—and particularly on his timing, because to make a major speech on this or any other Bill at this time is the best way to catch the next day's papers, but I am doubtful about his points—
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member seems to have failed to observe that it was only because Mr. Speaker accepted the Adjournment of the House yesterday under Standing Order No. 9 that the debate began at 7 o'clock. Otherwise, it would have begun at 3.30, which would have allowed me to catch the evening papers as a result of my Parliamentary perspicacity and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in filling, the Notice Paper with Amendments before North-East Derbyshire could get a look in.
  Mr. Ogden: We agree on the timing, but I still wonder what the hon. Gentleman's speeches would be like at one or two o'clock in the morning.
  On two points, I agree with the hon. Member—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Amendment as soon as possible.
  Mr. Ogden: On the point of the Amendment, which is to remove the borrowing powers, the hon. Gentleman said something with which I agree—that there are greater possibilities for exporting to Europe than before, not only because of devaluation but because of the dropping of contracts. My conclusion from this, however, is the opposite of his. He regards it as a possible way of reducing the burden but I see it as an opportunity, and the money would be needed just as much.
  I disagree, however, with the suggestion that it should be possible to reduce the sum involved by selling existing coal stocks for less than cost. The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to the price in Scotland, but he must accept that, if we are to sell to Scotland at a reduced price coal now lying on the ground in England the only effect would be to reduce the output of Scottish mines and thus replace one set of coal at less than cost with another set. If the hon. Member has thought out what he suggests, he will
  1242
  realise that it would result in more rather than less unemployment in Scottish mines—
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Ogden: Not at the moment—
  Mr. David Webster: On a point of order. The hon. Member has made an aspersion on my hon. Friend. Is my hon. Friend not allowed to reply?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ogden: On many occasions, the hon. Member for Cathcart has asked me to give way and I intend to do so this time, but not at the beck and call of any hon. Member, no matter where he sits. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South was asked several times to give way and did not always do so immediately. I will give way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, but in my time and not in the time of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster).
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that I was suggesting that we should try to get uniform prices throughout the country and that the effect of this on consumption would help Scottish industry and should be welcome, instead of having differential prices, and that this would mean a slightly lower price in Scotland although a slightly higher one in Yorkshire?
  Mr. Ogden: This might be considered, but the hon. Gentleman's point related to selling off coal more cheaply, which would only close down Scottish coal mines.
  I understand that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are not called. They were posted to the House from the North-West last Thursday and it is not my fault that they are not on the Notice Paper. This is no criticism of the Table. They arrived on Saturday and were not in time to be considered for selection—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. They are on the Notice Paper but they are not selected.
  Mr. Ogden: Yes, Sir Ronald, they did not arrive in time.
  They sum up my opposition to the Amendment and my support for the only

  1243
  thing which we can support, the figures in the Bill. However, the figures in those Amendments would have been preferable.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Some varied points have been made. I regret that I was not able to speak on Second Reading. We are talking of a sum comparable to half that spent on nationalising the steel industry, which will be spent between now and 1971 or in the next 16 months. In fact, it is a blank cheque, unless we or some other mechanism check that it will be borrowed and then spent wisely.
  I had hoped to move the Amendment it my name to provide that the increased sum shall only be dispersed on the coal mining activities of the Board, but that Amendment has not been called. Had I been able to speak on Second Reading, as I wished, I would have raised points which I raised two years ago in the debates on the 1965 Coal Industry Act. Since then many disturbing things have happened. We should not take part in a debate of this type without bearing in mind the earlier debate that took up our time for about three hours.
  Mr. Schweitzer, the O.E.C.D. and the I.M.F. are concerned about how we in this country spend our money, particularly in the public sector. Assurances will be required that this money is being spent to create wealth and not merely as a means of extending Socialisation. This is particularly relevant today compared with even two years ago, when I advocated the need for a cheap energy policy. I was greatly relieved to read on page 38 of the White Paper that this policy has been accepted by the Minister. It is as necessary now for our industries as it was then because unless we follow this policy our industries will not be able to compete in export markets.
  Two years ago I queried whether the business objective of the N.C.B. was rightly solely to win, gain and mine coal as efficiently as possible and to concentrate on that task. When debating the 1965 Act on the coal industry—and I advise hon. Members to refer to the Committee proceedings on that Measure—I supported a move to delete the provision which is now Section 1(2,c) for acquiring an undertaking or part of an undertaking. We had considerable dis-
  1244
  cussions on the topic and I would now like to know how much of the money that has already been loaned to the N.C.B. has been spent on activities which are not primarily concerned with winning, gaining and mining coal.
  We have debated the subject of devaluation and the discussion that has taken place for the I.M.F. Ioan. On 30th November the Paris correspondent of the Financial Times reported:
  "The United Kingdom claim that the inflationary effects of higher State spending can he offset by increased taxation"—
  This had not assured a number of delegates—
  "But another factor in their reserve was probably the widesperad belief on the Continent that the present Government is overtaxing the private sector to support its public programmes."
  Bearing this in mind, it is wrong to have this debate and discuss the future of miners and mines without elevating it into the wider context of the economy. During the past three years the State has become heavily involved in a variety of trading activities, activities which, two or three years ago, would probably have been considered not to be any business of State organisations and nationalised industries. If we are not careful these activities may jeopardise the very bread and butter that feeds us.
  From time to time the boards of nationalised industries must go cap in hand to the Treasury for increased borrowing powers. At present, these increased powers may enable these State Organisations to compete unfairly with people who are already in business. We must, therefore, carefully watch this aspect of the problem.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have shared the view that the N.C.B., in a declining industry, should have power to diversify. Hon. Members might consider it wrong to dispute whether or not this money should be spent in that way. However, if diversification is to take place, it must occur under the same rules that the private sector must obey, otherwise State organisations will be competing unfairly.
  A number of smaller matters must be raised in a debate of this kind. I looked, without success, through the N.C.B.'s Annual Report and Accounts in the hope of finding a reference to the decision to

  1245
  install a new electric arc furnace at the Tredomen Engineering Works. But the Minister has answered Questions about this. Some hon. Members—except those who represent Welsh constituencies—will wonder what this subject has to do with the debate. I looked on pages 26 and 27 of the N.C.B.'s annual Report and Accounts, but could find no reference to these engineering works.
  Thus, on Thursday, 22nd March, I asked a series of Questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. One was about annual capacity and output. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that he had asked the Chairman of the Board to write to me giving me whatever information he could. I received a letter from the Chairman of the N.C.B. and I have been able to release the information contained in it to the Press. It is the sort of information that those judging the affairs of the N.C.B. would not normally be able to acquire. An hon. Member may ask for it and the Minister may arrange for him to receive it. The yearly output of the Tredomen works is of the order of 1,200, 1,300, sometimes 1,400 tons. Hon. Members may ask, "What is that?" but the amount of steel castings sold ouside is increasing. What evidence have we of the capital going to this works? There is a fair profit on steel foundry activities in engineering, and this works gives a fair measure of what can be achieved in this field.
  9.0 p.m.
  On 4th April, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he would consider selling this particular activity. Off the cuff, in the House, he said "Certainly not", but this is something that should be looked at. If the Board is to come to the House for increased sums for its activities—
  Mr. Ness Edwards: As this works is situated in my constituency, and was established long before the coal industry was nationalised, and as it is now being used to test cast supplies for the Coal Board and is a place where pilot schemes can be run to test the cost of production and the prices of various supplies, I should have thought that it was doing a first-class job of getting value for money for the Board.
  Mr. Osborn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that interruption—he
  1246
  knows my interest in the matter—and perhaps tonight he will make a speech advising us what capital is employed, what the turnover is and whether or not the whole engineering works is making a profit corresponding to the target set by the White Paper for these nationalised industries. If we can have the assurance that that is so, without having to probe and probe again, everyone will be satisfied, and if the works is providing employment in the right hon. Gentleman's area, it is to be welcomed. Perhaps he will make his contribution later, and let the House know more about this important activity.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a speech. If he asks questions he must have an answer. The answer is that I do not regard this Chamber as the right place to get accountability of the detailed operations of any nationalised industry. I should have thought that the right place was in the Specialist Committees, which the officers concerned can be requested to attend, and be examined as to the details. Our general debates in the House seldom achieve anything.
  Mr. Osborn: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because I wanted to deal with the value of our Specialist Committees. I do not want to decry the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, but if he reads page iii of the Select Committee's Second Report he will find that the Committee deals with 14 nationalised industries. It states:
  "There is, therefore, liable to be a long interval between the Sessions in which it is possible to examine the Report and Accounts of any one industry. Your Committee, therefore, decided this Session to invite the Chairmen of certain industries, whose Reports and Accounts have not recently been examined, to appear before them …"
  It points out that the coal industry was examined in 1958 and 1962.
  We had a meeting at which Lord Robens of Woldingham, Chairman of the National Coal Board, appeared, attended by a Mr. R. G. C. Cowe. I was not present at the meeting, but I imagine that it took one morning—one morning has constituted close examination by the House of the activities of the Board. That Report was published on 16th February, 1966, before the last General Election.

  1247
  Perhaps the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is giving more attention to the Coal Board's activities, but this House has no mechanism for examining in detail the blank cheque that is offered time and time again.
  The right hon. Gentleman must realise this, because those who are lending money to the country at present realise that although we have the mechanism for increasing the activities of the public sector we are completely incapable of controlling the activities of Chairmen and Boards, and it is the taxpayers who find that it is their standard of living which is at stake. So, while the right hon. Gentleman's interruption in a case like this is welcome, it is only a small episode in what we have to deal with.
  Mr. Marsh: Clearly, the hon. Member feels strongly on this point and he has made a major factor of it. This is a criticism which has been made from time to time in the past. I think that it can be argued that there is quite a lot of information on the Board's diversified activities in the 1966–67 accounts. As a result of the strong views expressed, with which I have some sympathy, I have arranged that where the Board owns half or more of the capital, the accounts should be placed in the Library.
  Mr. Osborn: I am obliged to the Minister. This is referred to, I believe, in one of the Reports, but we might have some difficulty about this particular factory, because I think that it comes under the heading of a maintenance shop and not of a wholly-owned or other subsidiary.
  I have dealt with one small issue, but the importance of this matter rests on the fact that the Minister of Power and other Ministers are now responsible for over 10 per cent. of the steel foundry industry in competition with the private sector. Are not the activities over which the Minister has control or discipline using finance, some of which will be provided under the borrowing powers to provide unfair competition? We discussed it on the Steel Bill and I do not wish to pursue this particular issue.
  I must apologise for taking rather more time than I had intended, but I must go on to the question of the brick industry. In Vol. 1 of the Report of Accounts there is a report on the manufacture of bricks.
  1248
  It is a very illuminating report, occupying two pages. We learn that the brick activities of the Coal Board made a loss of £492,000 before charging interest against a profit in the previous year of £93,000. Reference is made to the Whittlesea Central Brick Company. We learn that a changing sales policy in the market is aimed at moving from output of non-Fletton bricks to a more balanced output of facing bricks as well as the Fletton and non-Fletton bricks. There, obviously, the Board is in competition with some of the big brick producers. There is reference to Throckley, in Northumberland, and Desford, in Leicestershire. The Coal Board is the second largest brick manufacturer in the country.
  I remind the Committee of a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 12th April. My hon. Friend
  "asked the Minister of Power why the Brickworks Division of the National Coal Board paid £132,000 interest on £2,200,000 capital in 1964–65, but only £92,000 interest on £2,400,000 capital in 1965–66."
  The reply by the Parliamentary Secretary was:
  "I am informed by the Board that the interest charged to the Brickworks Division in 1965–66 reflected the reduction in the Board's total interest liability following capital reconstruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 216.]
  So some of the effects of the 1965 Act were to write down the capital of activities in competition with the private sector. This, I suggest, is a reason why we should examine how the money we vote on these occasions is spent. This is one of the aspects of the unfair competition with the private sector.
  In the 1967 accounts the capital is £789 million whereas two years before it was £1,150 million which again shows the effects of previous legislation. The diversified activities of the Coal Board are such that we must be assured that if any of this money—perhaps £45 million mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) or perhaps a lower figure stated in the White Paper—is not spent on buying up other activities which have nothing to do with coal mining. We must be assured that money so spent is not devalued to provide the Coal Board and other nationalised industries with opportunities for setting up in unfair competition against the private sector.

  1249
  It is time that the House had an assurance that the top management of the Coal Board had decided whether it was in business to gain coal. Is it not time that the Coal Board decided that its sole object is to rationalise its activities so that it did what it is supposed to do efficiently and effectively? The private sector is subjected to exactly this discipline. There is the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. If the private sector does not of its own volition rationalise its activities, there is an organisation to ensure chat it does. Will the Minister discuss—
  The Chairman: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Second Reading debate. We are dealing only with borrowing powers on this Amendment.
  Mr. Osborn: I have been discussing the borrowing powers, Sir Eric, and I was—
  The Chairman: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to argue with me. I am reminding him that on this Amendment we are discussing only the borrowing powers. It is not a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Sir Eric. If we are considering the borrowing of money, ought we not to discuss the ways in which the Coal Board uses it?
  The Chairman: It is not a Second Reading debate. We are not discussing all the activities of the Coal Board. The debate is limited to borrowing powers and, therefore, an argument about relations with the private sector, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was developing, is out of order.
  Mr. Osborn: I shall bring my remarks on this matter to a close, Sir Eric. We must have an assurance that money borrowed under this Clause is spent in the right way, namely, in coal mining and the activities connected therewith and not on a lot of other ancillary activities. The Minister might well consider establishing a nationalised industries reorganisation corporation—perhaps he will discuss it in t he Cabinet—to ensure that this money is spent where it is needed, on the
  1250
  coal mines, and that the Coal Board and other nationalised industries divest themselves of activities which are a drain on the public purse and a threat to the private sector.
  I agree that there is a problem in establishing the correct rate at which our mines should be closed, but, before we vote the money here provided for, we should have an assurance that there is a better mechanism for vetting the Coal Board's activities. Accountants should report to us on how the money is being spent, and on how money has been spent in the past. Without sufficient assurances, it would be wrong to vote for the additional sum proposed by the Government. At the most, it should be a lower figure. The Coal Board and the other nationalised industries should have their activities properly vetted.
  Admittedly, much of the money which it is proposed to borrow would go to help the miners. Those who face redundancy and insecurity have the compassion of all of us. But let us not forget that the money is provided by the taxpayer, and the nation is in severe economic straits. If the money is provided by taxpayers, it must come from wage and salary earners in other industries.
  I doubt that the Minister has any proper mechanism available to him to show whether sums spent in the pact have been spent wisely or whether this money will be spent wisely. I doubt that the chairman of the Coal Board has such a mechanism, either. For these reasons, I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) suggests that we should probe the finances of the National Coal Board, even in the past, so that we may have some idea whether to approve the borrowing powers now proposed. It has been a wide-ranging debate and, among other topics, I hope to say a word about that. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) bring in the subject of coal distribution during a discussion on the whole question of costs.
  9.15 p.m.
  It is rather ironic to realise, when the whole efficacy of nationalisation is challenged, that in the main private enterprise distributes coal. Yet it costs more

  1251
  to distribute it than to produce it, and therefore I do not know the logic in the argument about nationalisation when we are discussing the provision of money. That argument does not fill me with enthusiasm for going over to private enterprise or some other method as a way to begin to save money.
  It is important that the Committee should probe, and like my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) I have a number of questions to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister. I do not intend to be as dogmatic as some hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends. It is important that we give due consideration to the spending of the money, particularly in view of devaluation; I believe that that is relevant to our being about to vote money to the National Coal Board.
  When we think about bankers and money, it is interesting to recall what I think Mark Twain said, that a banker is a man who lends you an umbrella when the weather is fair, and takes it away from you when it rains. That may well be the predicament we are in.
  I should like to put some suggestions to my right hon. Friend which may help the Committee in deciding whether to approve the borrowing powers. On 20th November we discovered that quite a lot of money was paid out by the Board as compensation to former owners of coal mines. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said that we must probe into the past to find out whether the money had been spent wisely, and it may interest the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart to know that the amount paid in compensation for vested assets in Scotland was £35,951,068. That is an awful lot of money, and we are entitled to ask if it is right and proper that it should have been given to the private owners. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that we must carefully examine the Board's finances, be careful about how we spend money and make sure who has spent it.
  I should like to know how the Coal Board spent money in payment to private owners. Did they deserve it? We understand that many of the collieries were handed over for a sum based on "unforeseen profits". But we also know that
  1252
  some of those collieries never made a penny of profit. Some of them were closed, but I understand that the owners were paid "unforeseen profits" all the same. I am not a financial expert, but I know that the miners question whether that money should have been paid. Is there any more to pay? Do the people who get it, deserve it? When they get it, where do they invest it? Do they invest in industries ancillary to mining or in industries antagonistic to mining? These are important questions.
  It would be parochial of me merely to concentrate on compensation paid in Scotland. We have the information here. In South Wales, the position is worse; there, over £36 million has been paid in compensation. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will address himself to this vital problem. It might be possible for us to save some money here. Perhaps it would not be necessary to vote the sum under this Bill if we could save some money in compensation—even reclaim some of it. If we did, I am sure that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South would be in accord with me because he made searching observations in relation to financing.
  Compensation in Kent has totalled nearly £2 million; in Somerset over £984,000; in the Forest of Dean over £942,000. Thus we have a valid case to examine. We are entitled to ask whether there is any more to pay and whether some of it could come back. In Yorkshire, there is a staggering total of nearly £67 million; in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire over £1·4 million; in North Staffordshire, £8½ million; in Cannock Chase, £7½ million; in Leicestershire about £4¾ million. These figures are catastrophic. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power will listen because this is important. We are dealing with money which we could perhaps save. In Nottinghamshire it is over £29¼ million.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members opposite got a great deal of this money?
  Mr. Eadie: I am not a financial wizard—I have not been in the House long enough to know who has got this money. But I worked in the pit 30 years before coming here and I speak with great authority in saying that the miners resent all

  1253
  this payment in compensation and they are entitled to, particularly when we get arguments against nationalisation. Indeed, we get arguments about the productivity value of miners in relation to their work. They are entitled to resent this.
  I have more figures. In South Derbyshire, the total is over £4 million; in North Derbyshire, over £22 million and in Yorkshire, as I have said it is nearly £67 million. Something should be done and I hope that my right hon. Friend will try and bring some of this money back. In North Wales it is nearly £2¾ million; in Lancashire and Cheshire, nearly £40½ million; in Cumberland it is over £1,600 million, in Durham, it is £41½ million and in Northumberland over £17¼ million. If we are talking in terms of finance, those figures are relevant. I do not suggest that every hon. Member will share my enthusiasm for the proposition that we should get some of this money back.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington made a very good speech, although I know that it probably did not please m any hon. Members opposite.
  Sir G. Nabarro: It pleased me.
  Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend made some strong observations I should like to be associated with. One of the arguments always advanced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is that we must consider this Bill in conjunction with the White Paper. The argument for the White Paper is that we must know the size of the problem in order to be able to do something about it. We are told that we must know the social problems attendant on the contraction of the mining industry so that we can do something about them. That is a fair proposition and I would not quarrel with it.
  But it is difficult to know the problem in my constituency or for my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington to know it in his constituency when we do not know how many pits are to close. I was urged to support the White Paper. I put down Questions asking what the problem would be in my constituency, and my right hon. Friend could not tell me. How can we plan for problems attendant on the contraction of the in-
  1254
  dustry if my right hon. Friend cannot tell me what they are? It is time that this information was forthcoming. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that we can expect a contraction in the mining industry of X number of people. Only when we know the areas and the locations shall we be able to plan for the future. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to provide this important information.
  9.30 p.m.
  When we discuss the costs of the rundown, I hope that hon. Members opposite will remember the policy which they pursued from 1966 onwards. I have charged my right hon. Friend with culpability in connection with gas production. It is clear that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have an equal culpability in connection with the Magnox programme, the first nuclear power programme. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we must consider our resources carefully, but we might not have had this problem if they had given proper attention to the operation of the Magnox programme where the misapplication of money was nearly a misappropriation of public funds. While it is true that that programme will result in the generation of electricity, the coal industry would not now be facing its present financial problems if hon. Members opposite had given more thought to it, for production in the mining industry would have been much greater. I hope that my right hon. Friend can provide satisfactory answers to all these questions.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will not expect me to agree with his remarks about the Magnox programme which was extremely valuable to the country because of certain consequences which flowed from it, in particular, the provision of large quantities of plutonium which will be available when the fast reactors come into commission in the mid-1970s and which we would otherwise not possess.
  Nuclear power is far less susceptible to the effects of inflation than is conventional electricity generation where the running costs are much more important than capital costs. For example, according to a paper by Sir Ronald Edwards, the last increase in the price of coal on 1st April, 1966, added more than £30 million to the costs of the electricity supply industry.

  1255
  I should be extremely surprised, if over the lifetime of the stations now being constructed, that was the last occasion on which coal prices had to be increased, whereas over the next 20 years one certainly hopes that the cost of uranium in nuclear power stations will remain much as it is and, even if there are price increases, they will have much less effect on the overall costs of generation, because they do not represent such a large proportion of costs.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the compensation paid on nationalisation, but he will find that there is no mention of those figures in the accounts of the Coal Board, because they were paid out 20 years ago and are no longer relevant. It may have been because undoubtedly large amounts were paid in compensation that we had to reconstruct the Board's finances two years ago and write off about £400 million from the accumulated deficit, but that cannot be used as an argument for retaining the borrowing limits provided in the Bill and for rejecting the Amendments. The hon. Gentleman is too late to say that the finances of the Board could have been helped by clawing back something from those who received compensation.
  The argument that the Coal Board's affairs should be scrutinised by the House well this side of March, 1971, is valid. Whatever one thinks about the future of mining, whether it should be larger or smaller, I would have thought that that proposition would command general agreement, whether or not one takes the view of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that we should subject the Board's ancillary activities to much more scrutiny. I do not think that that is particularly important when the accounts show only £3½ million invested in those ancillary undertakings at the end of last year. I hope that some of the ancillary activities will be increased, particularly investment in North Sea gas which I expect to be an extremely profitable investment for the Board, one which will help to reduce the amount which the Board would otherwise need to borrow.
  This was the opinion of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), a former Minister of Power, who, in the debate in 1965, com-
  1256
  mended the Board for its enterprise in branching out into exploring for North Sea gas. But, nevertheless, I should like to be assured that we shall have an opportunity of looking at the progress which the Coal Board has made, in conjunction with its partners, in the exploration of the North Sea gas some time in the next couple of years. This is the reason why I am supporting the Amendment. It is not because I want to limit or constrain the Coal Board within impossible limits so that it could not meet its commitments over the next few years, but because I think that we are entitled to have a look at the progress which is being made towards the objective set out in the White Paper.
  The hon. Member for Hallam made some comments on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. He said that in the last couple of years only once has the Chairman of the Coal Board given evidence before that Committee, that this was for a single morning, and that during that time that Committee could not possibly probe all the details that the hon. Gentleman would have liked it to go into, such as the affairs of the Whittlesea Brick Company, and so on.
  I have a certain amount of sympathy with him on this point, although I do not agree with the opinion once exspressed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries was a febrile and vacuous body. With the enormous number of nationalised undertakings that that Committee has to investigate, it is asking too much for it to do the job of the House and thoroughly probe the affairs of the Coal Board and make reports at intervals of sufficient frequency to give us a picture of what is happening.
  I would draw the Minister's attention to one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology: that the House should have a special Select Committee, perhaps staffed by experts, to look at the energy industries of this country on a continuous basis. I think that if we had set up a Select Committee of that nature it would not have been necessary to have the argument which has occupied so much of the time of the Committee this evening. It is essential, to my mind, that

  1257
  the energy industries, which are so important to our economy—the coal industry, the electricity supply industry and the gas undertakings—should be subjected to continuous scrutiny.
  This can only be done by the establishment of a specialist committee for the job and not at the very infrequent intervals when the Committee or the House of Commons as a whole manages to get around to it. Meanwhile, as we have not got such a Select Committee in existence. I think that the only answer is for us to grant an increase in the borrowing powers of the Coal Board of such a dimension that will ensure that the Minister has to come hack to the House with another Bill well before 1971.
  Looking at the developments which have taken place, even the forecasts which have been presented by the Minister in his present White Paper may be falsified. We have heard a lot of discussion about how wrong previous estimates were. The Ridley Committee, which was set up under the Tory Government, predicted 240 million tons output in 1962. However, this was not the only forecast that was hopelessly wrong when the time came to examine it in the light of actual experience. It may well be that we have not yet seen the ultimate effect of North Sea gas on the National Coal Board. We cannot make a judgment upon this unless we know what price the Gas Council is to pay for this gas and, therefore, how much it will eat into the traditional markets of the coal industry.
  We can look at the figures in the White Paper of the amount of coal equivalent which may be consumed in the form of gas by 1975, but we cannot evaluate the Minister's forecasts unless we know how the price of this gas will compare with coal in the intervening period. We know that nuclear energy is coming down in price as each successive station is built. Even with Dungeness B it is already 10 per cent. cheaper than the best coal-fired station in the country.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Not true.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman says "Not true", but I suggest that he looks at one of the appendices to the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology where not only
  1258
  are figures set out which were arrived at by the Minister of Power's Working Party, but also the subsequent report of a group, including representatives of the Coal Board, which went through those figures with a fine tooth comb. The representatives of the Coal Board on that Committee agreed with the Working Party's figures, although Lord Robens subsequently tried to repudiate them.
  Mr. McGuire: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the C.E.G.B.'s estimate of the cost of nuclear energy at Dungeness B, which is to come into existence three years from now, is only one-hundredth of a penny better than at Cottam, and that this does not take into account the effect of devaluation which will increase the price of imported uranium. There is no advantage at all.
  Mr. Lubbock: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that devaluation will increase the price of uranium, because we have substantial stocks of it. It will not affect the enrichment costs, because this will be undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority at its Capenhurst works. The hon. Gentleman may try to adjust the figures, as Lord Robens does, but he cannot get out of this. There is a 10 per cent. differential between the first of the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the best coal-fired stations coming into operation at the same date.
  If he looks further ahead, to Hinkley Point B Station, and Hunterston B, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred, he will see that costs are coming down to about 0·45d. per kilowatt hour. According to the Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, this represents a difference of not 10 per cent., but 30 per cent., compared with the cost of coal-fired stations which will be coming into operation at the same time, because, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the cost of coal in Scotland is 34s. 10d. more per ton than that from the cheapest coalfields in England.
  Mr. Webster: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that we write off coal-powered stations after 30 years, whereas the period of amortisation for nuclear stations is 20 years. This means a 10 per cent. difference in the cost per kilowatt hour.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I have never understood why the C.E.G.B. adopts rules which are unfavourable to nuclear power. This is not the only one. There are other ways in which it is possible to compare the cost of nuclear power and conventional power. If the same ground rules were applied to nuclear power as to conventional power, the differential in favour of nuclear power would be very much greater than it is already.
  I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to hon. Members like the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), that they should not try to sustain the consumption of coal at some predetermined level by artificial means. The hon. Member for Cathcart suggested that there should be the same price for coal all over the United Kingdom. Somebody will have to pay for that, and we are already facing a large bill in this Measure before us, due to the increase in the borrowing powers, the amount which we are subsequently going to vote under other Clauses, the subsidy to the electricity undertakings and gas boards for the consumption of coal as opposed to some alternative fuel, and so on.
  If these suggestions are accepted, somebody will have to pay for them, and no doubt it will be the taxpayer. People will then say, "You are increasing public expense beyond all reason" and the hon. Member for Cathcart, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and others, will criticise the Government for that. I daresay that after this afternoon we might find that the I.M.F. will have something to say about it as well. They say that the growth of public expenditure must be controlled within certain limits, and this is part of the price that the Government are having to pay for a very large loan.
  If the suggestion that fresh subsidies be given to the coal industry were accepted, not only would these borrowing limits have to be increased still further, but some very difficult explanations would have to be given to the I.M.F.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Even in terms of Adam Smith economics, this is a complete heresy. The argument which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward—and I am astonished that, as a Liberal, he can put it forward—surely
  1260
  amounts to this. He is completely forgetting that this country has 200 years known supplies of coal, the greatest single economic asset which it posseses. The hon. Gentleman's argument completely ignores that. One cannot just wipe it off and say that it does not affect the price of other things. I have heard much hostile criticism about the phoneyness or suspect nature of the statistics put forward by the Coal Board. The statistics being put forward by the North Sea gas and atomic energy people are extremely suspect.
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech, not an intervention.
  Mr. Lubbock: I accept that, according to Lord Robens's figures, we have 200 years' supply of coal under our feet at the present rate of consumption. But that does not mean that it is worth using it if it costs so much more than alternative sources of energy. The hon. Gentleman might just as well say, "Let us go back to burning wood in the locomotives because there are plenty of trees in the country. We are not making use of this very important national asset but are merely letting it grow and accumulate uselessly in our forests."
  That is the logic of his argument—that simply because we have a natural asset it is wasteful not to use it. His economics are fallacious. If we can produce natural gas from the North Sea or electricity from nuclear energy at very much cheaper rates than we can produce the equivalent from coal, it is worth making use of these alternative sources of energy.
  As long as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends try to sustain the consumption of coal at a predetermined level and try to sustain employment at 380,000, or whatever the figure is, they will not tackle the real job with this Minister, and that is how to provide alternative employment for the miners being displaced from their existing jobs and how to pump new industries into the areas affected, not only into the development areas but into Yorkshire and parts of England which are not at present in development areas.
  These are the important problems which the hon. Gentleman and mining Members and the National Union of

  1261
  Mineworkers are neglecting. If they would cease preaching the maintenance by artificial means of the coal industry at a given level and started to attack the Minister for his failure to provide jobs in the mining areas and to give adequate assistance to industry going to those areas, they would do their jobs much better than they are doing them.
  Mr. Marsh: We have had a very long debate on the first Clause of a very important Bill. It is right that it should have been a big debate because, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), with his characteristic Victorian elegance, said, this is the guts of the entire Bill. It is right that we should have had a more wide-ranging debate than will be the case on any of the other Clauses.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) made a number of points and took full advantage of the width of the Clause. He ranged around the needs of an energy board, which is not covered in the Bill, and which I would be prepared to debate and disagree violently upon at any time. He also mentioned nuclear power and it is significant that whatever decisions were taken about power stations, whether nuclear or coal-fired, they could not come on stream or have any effect until long after the Bill expires, so are not relevant.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who normally "kicks off" on these occasions, asked how reliable are the forecasts on which this proposition is based. It is beyond dispute that forecasts of coal production and consumption have always been wrong in the past and in the same direction. They have always been over-optimistic. This is a danger not merely in terms of managing, but, far more than that, because much of the human suffering in the industry has resulted from the failure to recognise the size of the social problem in time. We have always considered a level of output and demand which was comforting at the time but never achieved—
  Mr. Swain: My right hon. Friend has repeated this proposition—it is on a tape, I think—about the size of the problem. How can he, in the Bill, deal with the size of the problem when he consistently answers my hon. Friends that he does
  1262
  not know and cannot forecast the size of the problem in their industries?
  Mr. Marsh: I intend to come to this point later, because it also follows on some of the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), to whom I apologise for the fact that he did not get answers before.
  This is important, because no one knows what will happen in the industry. There is no claim that the White Paper produces the final solution. It is the result of 18 months' work to find the best possible global estimate. In 1970, I think, we are likely to be fairly close to the truth, about 1975 I am less certain, and it is nonsense to estimate about 1980, because no one knows what equipment the industry will have or what other factors will apply. So the hon. Member for Yeovil—this is probably the last time that we will agree: I hope so—is right to cast these doubts. I have never pretended that the figures is the White Paper are more than the best estimate that we can make with the available sophisticated techniques.
  Therefore, we are recognising what is happening in the industry and saying that it is too rapid. That is why we come to the Committee tonight for further legislation of this type, because to prevent the rate of rundown and to minimise some of the social hardships which will result, society has to pay the bill. This bill is not just on investment for equipment, but is part of a large exercise intended to slow down what would otherwise be the rate of contraction in the industry and thereby minimise some of the social consequences.
  There has been much discussion about diversified activities. It is right that the Committee should concern itself with the spending of public money, particularly sums as large as this, and I think that the House of Commons will be asked again to look at the industry. No one would suggest that the Board's diversified activities are in themselves a central issue. It worries some and is a source of query, which is why I think it right to say that we have agreed that copies of the accounts of companies in which the Board owns half or more of the equity will in future be placed in the Library for hon. Members to consult.

  1263
  It would be a great pity—here I take issue with the hon. Member for Yeovil—to use the Bill as a vehicle for doctrinal arguments about private enterprise and diversification, paying off old scores against the Lord Robenses or any other individuals in the industry—
  Mr. Peyton: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not paying off any old scores nor indulging in doctrinal arguments. I am simply concerned that the nation's resources, which are at the moment not overflowing, should be decently safeguarded by the House of Commons, and nothing else.
  Mr. Marsh: I realise, on reflection, that my reference to old scores could have meen misconstrued and I apologise. I meant that there is no point in turning this into an argument about personalities. Whoever headed the Coal Board would face one of the biggest managerial and social problems of any industrial management.
  Reference is sometimes made to our colleagues across the Channel, who are doing a grand job, but who, in every European country—perhaps with the exception of the Poles—face problems in coal mining. The Coal Board is handling its problems more efficiently and humanely than any other country with problems of this size. When there are arguments about nationalisation, no hon. Member on either side has the faintest doubt what would have happened to this industry in these circumstances under private enterprise. It would have ceased to be profitable under private enterprise in large blocks of the country years ago if it ceased to be profitable under the Coal Board.
  The difference with private enterprise, now that the coal industry is under central control, is that it is possible to approach this with a central direction and inject into the problem more than a straight and rather squalid argument about whether something does or does not pay. This argument must be taken into the equasion and cannot be ignored. It enables us, with the system of public ownership which we have in this industry, to approach it with a degree of efficiency and humanity which I again say is better than the system existing in most
  1264
  other countries with similar problems. Ask the coal miners of the Ruhr whether they find their privately owned coal industry a particularly attractive proposition.
  Mr. William Baxter: I am interested to hear my right hon. Friend's remarks about the humane treatment, more or less, being given to coal miners who are knocked out of work, compared with the treatment that they would have received under private enterprise. This may be true in some cases, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the position in West Stirlingshire, where 14 pits have been closed during the last six or seven years. What humane treatment has been meted out to the miners who have lost their jobs in my constituency.
  Mr. Marsh: I am not for the moment pretending that the present position does not involve, and has not involved for years, enormous hardships and enormous social problems for large numbers of our people.
  Mr. Baxter: The Bill—this is of vital importance to the people I represent—does not seem to provide very much for the miners who are knocked out of work in my constituency. Any advantage that will accrue will occur from the time of the passage of the Bill. What about the miners who have been knocked out of work in the last two or three years? What compensation will they get?
  Mr. Marsh: I would be trespassing upon the rules of order if I were to try to deal with this and similar matters. My hon. Friend will have a chance to raise this issue on a subsequent Clause. The Bill sets out to provide the first basis, following the White Paper, to tackle this problem. A lot more needs to be done and I will be dealing with that when we come to later clauses, which may not receive the unanimous support of the Committee. At this stage I am arguing the need to get this problem dealt with on a co-ordinated and regional basis.
  I return to the question of the sums involved—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered.
  That the proceedings of the Coal Industry Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gordon Walker.]

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Marsh: I return refreshed, after that short intermission or technical hitch, to the subject of the money with which the Clause is concerned. A number of hon. Members have asked for explanations. Seldom, if ever, has such a degree of detail been given as is presented in the White Paper. In paragraphs 128 to 131 appear a great many explanations, and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—I mention him this early in my speech to satisfy him—quoted freely from these paragraphs.
  The position is that borrowings under the 1965 Act, excluding temporary borrowings, will be about £700 million by March, 1968. If one therefore allows for temporary borrowings and stocks, borrowings may exceed £800 million by the end of next year. I must come to Parliament long before there is any danger of the statutory limit being exceeded, and this means that under the Bill I would expect to ask Parliament to approve a draft order, probably before the end of 1969.
  It is not unreasonable that an industry faced with the difficulties which the coal industry faces should have a clear idea of its future, certainly up to the middle or end of 1969. It is equally right that, when dealing with sums of this size, Ministers should have to return to Parliament. This system means that I or some other Minister of Power—which is an attractive thought from time to time—will return here before the end of 1969 for further discussion on this to get an adidtional order. Hon. Members on both sides have considered ways of avoiding this procedure. However, the sums involved are so enormous that there must be some method of adequately dealing with the matter.
  1266
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South pointed out strongly that we should sell off coal stocks. This is an attractive proposition which, I assure the hon. Gentleman, had crossed the mind of the N.C.B. from time to time. With 30 million tons of coal on the ground, if the N.C.B. could get someone to buy it, that would be considered a good thing. The problem is that if one were to sell it internally, one would be displacing coal with coal. We are making arrangements to use additional coal in power stations, but we will be coming to that in a subsequent part of the Bill.
  Exports have been a difficult problem for a long time. A large element of American coal going to the Continent consists of coking coals—they probably constitute the major proportion—but a large proportion of our stocks consists of bituminous coal, and that does not mean that our stocks are of coals which other people are buying from the United States. I should not have thought that we could break into the American market and, in any case, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would agree that it would be very marginal in the short term—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Marsh: No, I really must get on.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I should just like—
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman is a brief visitor this evening—but never mind.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: That does not alter the fact that I am listening to the Minister's speech. Is he saying that this £30 million worth of stock is unsaleable, and therefore should not be included as stock or what does he mean?
  Mr. Marsh: I did not say that it was £30 million worth of stock, but 30 million tons of stock. I say that it is unsaleable in that the Board has not been able to sell it. Most people would agree that the Board's marketing is extremely efficient—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have put this point to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions. He has given a variety of

  1267
  good reasons why the Coal Board cannot sell that 30 million tons of coal. I put to him earlier, and on Second Reading, that a large part of this coal has been there for years. Is it not the fact, therefore, that it is unsaleable? If that is the case, will he say so? Alternatively, why not switch over the dual-fired power stations that are consuming millions of tons of imported oil, and use this allegedly unsaleable coal, all of which is capable of being burnt in power stations, instead of imported oil?
  Mr. Marsh: We will come later to the question of coal-burning power stations. In terms of the deterioration of stocks, our coal stocks 10 years ago amounted to 8·6 million tons. It, therefore, follows that the vast bulk is less than 10 years old, and its deterioration has not been considerable. If someone would buy it, nobody would be happier than I to see the Coal Board sell it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) advanced a proposition which I find attractive though, with regret, I have to say that I do not think that it offers much hope. He said that the compensation paid to the coal owners was too high. That matter, of course, was not one for me—I was not the right hon. Gentleman who fixed the compensation stock for nationalised industries at that time—and it would be profitless for us to discuss whether or not the level of compensation has been sold many times, and those who now own it probably have no relationship to the original coal proposition but it is not one that helps us out of our difficulties.
  My hon. Friend also referred to a matter on which he feels very strongly. I respect him for it because has has always pushed the interests of his constituents. He said that there needs to be a plan on a regional basis for dealing with the social consequences whatever may be the scale of the rundown. It was to this point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) returned when he asked specifically about rundown.
  It is quite impossible to project as far ahead exactly which pits will close when, and rather easier to say what the total
  1268
  coal production will be. None the less, two pits are known to be due to be closed during 1968—as a result of exhaustion, for which there could be no argument. One would certainly expect most of the 16 deferred pits to be closed in the course of 1968, and there are known to be some 31 pits in jeopardy, of which a number would clearly go during that period. Of course, in a year, and certainly in the course of more than a year, this pattern changes very much; some pits improve their performance. But we can see pretty clearly what the size will be in the end.
  My right hon. Friend made a point about productivity. He was passing on a question which miners asked him and which I am asked at miners' meetings from time to time. The question was: what is the effect of productivity on manpower leaving aside any decision to change the levels of coal production? This is one of the dilemmas we face, and it is important to face it. If productivity rises, it means by definition fewer men. If productivity does not rise, it means higher prices, inability to sell the coal, and fewer men. There is no way out of this impasse. That is a phrase I wanted to get in at some stage this evening, but seriously this is an important point.
  If, as is sometimes said—I think it completely impracticable and quite impossible—coal production were frozen at the existing level until 1970–71, we would lose 100,000 coal miners as a result of productivity alone. If we could not get that productivity we would lose even more men and be able to produce less coal.
  It is right that hon. Members should say, "Have the Government done enough in alternative employment?" It is right that they should put probing questions to Ministers. What would be disastrous would be to try to convince coal miners that there was any way out of this contraction in mining manpower apart from certain limits. It would be a wicked thing to do because (a) they would be disappointed and, (b), social measures would not be taken.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am following with great attention what my right hon. Friend is saying and I recognise that in

  1269
  a sense we are on the horns of a dilemma. Does he not realise that if we say to men in the mining industry, "Your pit is not paying its way, therefore you have to work harder, use the machinery at your disposal with greater effort and greater effectiveness. If you do not do that the pit will close," so that the men go ahead, put their hearts into the work and produce more coal, greater productivity, only to discover that many of them become redundant—there is the dilemma—obviously, the third question I put to my right hon. Friend applies? Before men become redundant, or are made redundant, the Government in some way must be able to offer them alternative employment.
  Mr. Marsh: The Government are, of course, engaged in a series of new measures in relation to alternative employment in these industries. The whole point of the Bill and of the White Paper is based on a belief that increased coal-mining productivity is the defence which the miner has against redundancy on an unacceptable scale. Therefore, the purpose of the Bill is to give the industry a breathing space to help it to get the level of productivity to enable it to compete with other industries.
  My right hon. Friend made the point that he would not vote—Front Benchers on this side of the House know that this can frequently be no idle threat—unless he was satisfied that the money was being used for social purposes as well as other purposes. But some of this money arises out of the increased coal stocks and there is some criticism about the growth of coal stocks. One of the arguments we would get is that we should curtail production because that would involve coal stocks. But part of the price which the community has to face in giving the breathing space is a recognition that there are large stocks of coal on the ground and the policy which we are pursuing is bound to mean that these coal stocks will continue to increase for a time. The financing of additional coal stocks is part of the social measures.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Swain: My right hon. Friend has referred to coal stocks. Is he aware that part of the money to be found under the Bill will go to finance 15 per cent. or so of the total stocks which are open-cast mined coal at the moment, and that 15
  1270
  per cent. represents about 3 million tons of the overall stocks? Will he not wisely consider the abandonment of all opencast working in the future, as nearly its total production today is being put into stock? Will he abandon open-cast working in favour of deep-mined coal?
  Mr. Marsh: I hesitate to be led astray by my hon. Friend into the rather complex issue which he has raised. There is this clash, as it were, between open-cast coal and deep-mined coal. Open-cast coal at present is, I think, about 4 per cent. of total production; it is absurdly cheap in comparison with normal coal and is, therefore, beneficial to the industry commercially. On the other hand, there is the question whether it is sensible to go on mining open-cast coal, given the surplus of deep-mined coal. This is a perfectly reasonable question to raise, and it is one I am in process of discussing with the Coal Board at present.
  I want to finish dealing with the perfectly fair questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. He spoke about investment in the industry. It is essential to get increased productivity, and one of the methods of doing it is investment in the most modern efficient machinery in the world, such as we have in some of our long-life pits. I was very interested recently to meet the Soviet Minister of Mines and, only last week, the Ukrainian Minister of Mines, both of whom were very impressed by the standard of British mining equipment in use in this country. Eighty per cent. of all the investment it is intended to make would be in the long-life pits, and the remaining 20 per cent. is a minimum level of investment, mainly on safety measures, in short-life pits. To that extent again, therefore, one would hope that this level of investment would all go towards ensuring that miners may have the breathing space to which I have referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) said that he wished the figure in the Bill were even bigger. I have a lot of sympathy with that view. I do not think that the Committee is under any illusion that it has paid the final bill for this exercise by the present Bill. At other stages in the future, other Ministers of Power, as in the past, will return to the House with

  1271
  Coal Industry Borrowing Powers Bills. But, because of the size of these figures, it is important that limits should be set which force Ministers back to the House of Commons in order that not only the finances but the policies upon which those finances are based can be debated.
  The White Paper, the Bill and the measures stemming from it will be debated many times in the future. It is proper that they should be. I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment. Perhaps it is too much to hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will now feel inclined to ask leave to withdraw it, on the ground that he has been convinced. However, if he is unwilling to do so, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment, in the belief that the borrowing powers are essential to the health of the industry and the humane treatment of the men engaged in it.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Without wishing to restrict anyone who wishes to follow in the debate, I think that it might be convenient at this point if I were to comment on what the Minister has said. He has, rightly, covered a wide debate and answered many of the points raised, but I shall confine myself to the narrower issues before the Committee. I shall make my comments under five heads: forecasting, the financing of stocks, investment, closures, and financial disciplines.
  I agree with the Minister when he says that no one knows what will happen. This, in a way, is the key to the Amendment now before us. If there is one sure thing about forecasting it is not only that it has been wrong but that it has been proved wrong at an unparalleled rate recently. All forecasts have been wrong, but the rate at which they have been wrong has been increasing. It is easy to demonstrate that merely by looking at the figures put up to the Prices and Incomes Board in 1965, on the basis of which the National Coal Board asked for a price increase. The figures put forward then were confounded in the Board's Annual Report for 1966–67. The demand forecast was already too high and the productivity forecast was already too low, even in that restricted time.
  1272
  In the Second Reading debate we went over the past year's forecast, which has been even more wrong. I agree with many hon. Members that we now face problems the dimensions of which could not have been appreciated a number of years ago. In 1959 we had a target of 200 million tons a year and one of my colleagues, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power questioned whether we could sell that quantity of coal in a year if it were produced. The then Mr. Robens said:
  "This is the answer to the Parliamentary Secretary, who shrieked the other week, "It is all right talking about 200 million tons, but you have got to sell it when you have got it." Of course one has, but it can easily be sold. There is no need to get bothered about it. We could export 10 million tons of coal a year, too."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1553]
  Earlier in his speech he had said that contraction was the answer for the coal industry, and that if it contracted and had time to do so coal could be competitive with oil anywhere in the country.
  We have followed up the remedies of contraction. The industry has had time to contract, but it has not become competitive with oil anywhere in the country, and we still have tremendous problems. It is not only the forecasting of demand that has been wrong. There has been forecasting of the rate at which the remedies would work and how, and this also has been wrong. For this reason, we think that if the Coal Board wants large, increasing sums of money it should come to the House more and more frequently. We should keep a much closer watch on the changing forecasts about coal, because they change far faster than was ever envisaged when we first had these Acts.
  I want to add something about financing stocks. During the Second Reading debate I asked the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions about stocks—about their quality and age. He has not answered them, but we still have to face some rather confusing figures about stocks. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) has said that under a Tory Government we had stocks of 50 million tons. I quickly looked back at the figures, which were for undistributed stocks held by the Board. The highest figure was in 1959, when stocks were 35·7 million tons. That does not take into account distributed

  1273
  stocks. Had the then Minister pursued the current policy of adding to the stocks regardless, the problem with which the right on. Gentleman is faced today would be far greater than it is. We should have a larger and larger stockpile and larger and larger amounts of working capital tied up in stocks which were never likely to be sold.
  What the Coal Board did then was to say, "We shall reduce the stocks by reducing production below the level of demand", and the stockpile naturally fell. But at the end of last year we had stocks of 20 million tons, valued in the Coal Board accounts at £80 million on the basis of their current value. That was writing them down from a higher value, because I understand that when they are put on the stockpile they are valued at market price and not cost price. Their market price has been higher but their written-down value was £80 million. That applied to 20 million tons.
  We now have an extra 8 million tons. Assuming this to be put on the stockpile at £5 a ton, we have in stock tied up an extra £40 million, which means at the moment that we have tied up in stocks £120 million. Already the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to go on increasing stockpiling, although he knows that probably a number of these stocks will never he sold. An article in The Economist of 21st October said:
  "So on the Coal Board's own unpublished reckoning, up to 50 million tons will be piled up into huge coal tips by the early 1970s. A ton of coal costs as much to store over ten years as it does to dig—which is close on £5 a ton. So £500 million could eventually be locked up in vast deteriorating heaps, for which the Minister of Power has undertaken in theory to compensate the Coal Board."
  If this is so, it is economic madness in any terms, bad for any business enterprise and bad for the morale of those in the coal industry. Morale will never be raised in the industry while the men know that the coal they mine is going to increasing stocks in increasing piles. As far as I can see, morale will be raised and the right people recruited at managerial levels only when the industry has finished its contraction and is once again competitive on its own unsubsidised merits. At that point it can expand.
  Mr. Marsh: The logic of what the hon. Lady is saying would be to return to a policy now of reducing production
  1274
  below the level of demand so that the demand could be switched into stocks. If that is what she is saying, the figure in 1970 would not be 155 million tons but something like 120 million tons. Does she think the industry could face that?
  Mrs. Thatcher: The logic of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he will go on increasing stockpiles regardless of demand. Is he seriously saying that? I would prefer to have production reduced below demand and spend the money on what we will have to spend it on eventually—not on increasing stock piles, which is putting money to a dead purpose, but on helping people to go to other industries and helping other industries to go there if need be. That is a more constructive use. If the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors had followed his policy, we should have a problem of unmanageable proportions now.
  Now I turn to the financing of investment. I asked about this on Second Reading and it is germane to the Amendment. I asked what the increased amount for investment would be used for. In the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman says that part of these extra borrowing powers would be used for increased investment. Increased investment was to have been generated from internal sources but now it cannot be since sales are down on the expected amounts. The White Paper says that increasing investment is required to the tune of £60 million for net capital investment in collieries and ancillary activities.
  We are very anxious that any increased investment should go into productive pits, to help produce coal more and more competitively. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said that the money will be required
  "… to supplement internal resources, mainly depreciation, available for capital investment of all kinds."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 260]
  Presumably that would include ancillary activities. The Parliamentary Secretary, in response to my question at the end of the debate, said:
  "A point raised by the hon. Member for Finchley was whether capital expenditure as intended under the Bill will be confined to colliery modernisation or will go to diversifying the activities of the N.C.B. The assurance I give is that this capital expenditure will be extended to the programme of modernisation

  1275
  in the pits, which is of course the policy of the N.C.B."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 390.]
  10.30 p.m.
  Who is right? The White Paper and the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister? They cannot both be right. If they are to have increased borrowing powers, and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not agree, that is another good reason for reducing the borrowing powers, and to get them to come back to Parliament when they have agreed.
  One point on pit closures. I criticise the Government with regard to the instructions which appear to have been given to the Coal Board on pit closures. I noticed that in the debate on the Coal Industry Bill in November, 1965, the then Minister said that
  "the Board intends, with the Government's full support, to speed up the process by effecting more than half these closures within about two years from now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 784.]
  So he said the Board intended to speed up the closures. The Report of the National Coal Board for the year 1965–66 said on page 6:
  "The Board had originally planned to phase the colliery closures fairly evenly over the years 1966–70 but at the Government's suggestion the major part of the closure programme will be completed in the two years 1966 and 1967."
  No enterprise, whether public enterprise or private enterprise, can operate on contradictory instructions, and it looks at the moment as if the Government asked the Board to speed up these closures, and are now telling the Board to slow down the closures. My sympathies go to the Board on this, because contradictory instructions appear to have been given to it. That is not the Board's fault, but the fault of the Minister and his predecessor, who is now running economic affairs in the North-East.
  What we are anxious to do is what was recommended by the National Board
  for Prices and Incomes when it considered the prospect of raising prices of coal which that Board agreed to. That Board said that what the industry needed was "tightening financial discipline ". On page 15 of its Report No. 12 it said:
  "Costs and prices can be held for the future only if this is changed."
  The change required was concentrating on the profitable pits, but not to get the profitable pits to carry the unprofitable pits. It went on to say:
  "The Government can help to induce this change by tightening financial discipline."
  This is what we on this side are seeking.
  I feel fairly certain that my hon. Friends will not have been convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I am not convinced myself. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will think it right to press his Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Webster(seated and covered): On a point of order. I understand that you have put the Closure, Sir Eric. Although I have been in the Chamber for the last hour and a half, as I was here for the whole of Second Reading, and although I saw a Whip stand up and open and shut his mouth, I heard nothing. What happened was completely inaudible to me. Did you, in fact, put the Closure?
  The Chairman: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is. I have accepted the Motion for the Closure.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 114.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES

  [10.33 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Bence, Cyril

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brooks, Edwin

  Archer, Peter

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Bob(N'c tle -upon-Tyne, W)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Barnett, Joel

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Beaney, Alan

  Boston, Terence

  Coleman, Donald

  Concannon, J. D.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Cronin, John

  Hoy, James

  Padley, Walter

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Dell, Edmund

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dickens, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Randall, Harry

  Doig, Peter

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lawson, George

  Rose, Paul

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Ledger, Ron

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert

  Ellis, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Ennals, David

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Ensor, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Stonehouse, John

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Tinn, James

  Finch, Harold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Ford, Ben

  Macpherson, Malcolm

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mapp, Charles

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marks, Kenneth

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Gardner, Tony

  Marquand, David

  Weitzman, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wellbeloved, James

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mason, Roy

  Whitaker, Ben

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Whitlock, William

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mikado, Ian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Charles R (Openshaw)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hamling, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Winnick, David

  Hannan, William

  Murray, Albert

  Woof, Robert

  Harper, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Yates, Victor

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Haseldine, Norman

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. Eric G. Varley and

  Hooley, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Mr. William Howie.

  Horner, John

  Orme, Stanley

  NOES

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Doughty, Charles

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jopling, Michael

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Balniel, Lord

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c't1e-upon-Tyne,N.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos, & Fhm)

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bessell, Peter

  Farr, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Blaker, Peter

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Lane, David

  Boardman, Tom

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Loveys, W. H.

  Braine, Bernard

  Gower, Raymond

  Lubbock, Eric

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant, Anthony

  MacArthur, Ian

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Gurden, Harold

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus,N&M)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Cooke, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Cordle, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Costain, A. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Dance, James

  Hunt, John

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  1278

  1279

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Percival, Ian

  Smith, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Peyton, John

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Webster, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Francis

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tilney, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 115, Noes 181.

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES

  [10.43 p.m.

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peyton, John

  Bessell, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Blaker, peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pym, Francis

  Boardman, Tom

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Braine, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick( Angus, N&M)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Jopling, Michael

  Silvester, Frederick

  Burden, F. A.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Clegg, Walter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Kitson, Timothy

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Cordle, John

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Costain, A. P.

  Lane, David

  Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tilney, John

  Dance, James

  Lubbock, Eric

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Davidson, James( Aberdeenshire, W.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Doughty, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Webster, David

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Emery, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Farr, John

  Monro, Hector

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Fortescue, Tim

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Worsley, Marcus

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  More, Jasper

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gower, Raymond

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. Anthony Grant.

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Buchan, Norman

  Dickens, James

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Doig, Peter

  Archer, Peter

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Eadie, Alex

  Barnett, Joel

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Baxter, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Beaney, Alan

  Cronin, John

  Ellis, John

  Bence, Cyril

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ennals, David

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Ensor, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tam

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Finch, Harold

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boston, Terence

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ford, Ben

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Dell, Edmund

  Forrester, John

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dempsey, James

  Freeson, Reginald

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Gardner, Tony

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Garrett, W E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McBride, Neil

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Probert, Arthur

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Randall, Harry

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rees, Merlyn

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rose, Paul

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Hamling, William

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Hannan, William

  Mapp, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert

  Harper, Joseph

  Marks, Kenneth

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Marquand, David

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mason, Roy

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hooley, Frank

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Stonehouse, John

  Horner, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Swain, Thomas

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Tinn, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Hoy, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Murray, Albert

  Weitzman, David

  Hunter, Adam

  Neal, Harold

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Whitaker, Ben

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Kelley, Richard

  Padley, Walter

  Winnick, David

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Woof, Robert

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Yates, Victor

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Lawson, George

  Pavitt, Laurence

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ledger, Ron

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Mr. Eric G. Varley and

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. William Howie.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
  As is my custom, I think that I can do this with great brevity. It would be possible, subject to any guidance which you, Sir Eric, might see fit to give to the Committee, for the same arguments as were appropriate to the first Amendment to be repeated on this one.
  The Chairman: Since the hon. Member asks for my guidance, it might be convenient if I indicate to the Committee that that is not the case. This Amendment is very much narrower, and the debate on it will be much more restricted.
  Mr. Peyton: Sir Eric, I think that you misunderstood me. I did not ask for your guidance. I said that the opinion which I was expressing was subject to any guidance which you might see fit to offer. That is quite different. As all hon. Gentlemen opposite know, asking for guidance is something which I would never be foolish enough to do, unless I was in great straits.
  The point here is really explained by the wording in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says in paragraph 2:
  "It also raises from £30 million to £50 million the limit imposed by section 1 (4)(b) of the 1965 Act on the amount of accumulated deficit which may be financed by temporary borrowings."
  It is true that the Committee now comes down from the level at which it has lately been considering figures. On the last Amendment we were dealing with £900 million, so it is quite a relief to come down to the small change of £30 million or £50 million. Nevertheless, I think that we are entitled to ask the Minister for some explanation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) who takes such an interest in these matters will wish to pay attention to this most important debate.
  Mr. Swain: I am listening, very seriously. I merely smiled not at the content of the hon. Member's speech, but at a fourth-rate comic trying to play Hamlet.
  Mr. Peyton: I am not quite sure how long the hon. Member is seeking to pro-
  1284
  long the discussion on the Bill he is so anxious to support, but it is nice to hear these civil interjections, which I realise are done with all that polished courtesy for which the hon. Gentleman is well known.
  If I can now get back to the subject of the contents of the Bill, I would just say that I think we are entitled to some reasonable answer telling us why the Coal Board needs this extra £20 million on its borrowing powers for temporary purchases. I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not lead the Parliamentary Secretary to think that he can avoid this issue with some vague generalities.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The issues here are much wider than denoted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and I rise therefore to support him a little more powerfully than I have done on earlier occasions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) who has just joined our debates for the first time today—
  Mr. Russell Kerr (Felham): No.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman shouts at me "another comic turn". Perhaps he will give me a few minutes to talk about the finances of the Coal Board and judge then how comic I am in my attribution of deficits to mismanagement by the Board.
  Mr. Kerr: That shows how comic you were a long time ago.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Sir Eric, I heard the hon. Member refer to you as being a comic. I hope that if I resume my seat you will put him into good order.
  The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman did make that remark and address it to me I hope he will withdraw it.
  Mr. Kerr: I do so unreservedly, Sir Eric. As you will gather it was directed at another hon. Member of this House.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): On a point of order, Sir Eric. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my hon. Friend as a comic turn?
  The Chairman: Order. I have heard similar expressions used in the House before.
  Sir G. Nabarro: These ribald and irrelevant interjections from sedentary hon. Members opposite are, of course, merely protracting our proceedings. I can make speeches of very great length on deficit financing if I am called upon to do so. I will, however, be relatively brief this evening as long as I am given a continuously quiet hearing without sedentary interruptions from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  I shall powerfully reinforce what the hon. Member for Yeovil has said. There is an extraordinary contradistinction in the financial fortunes of the Board, comparing last year with the projected deficit during the next two years.
  I said in the immediately preceding debate that the Coal Board had almost broken even in the last couple & of years on its current account, and in this subsection (2) it is providing for a deficit of £50 million over the length of life of operations which will flow from this Bill.
  That length of life, in the immediately preceding Amendment, I put at 16 months. The Minister thinks it is a bit longer. He muttered "1971" on one occasion. But it will not be 1971 or anything like it; it is much more likely to be 1969. Hon. Members representing mining constituencies will agree here. If it is 1969, that is two years ahead. We are budgeting, in effect, for a deficit of £50 million over two years, which represents a loss of about £25 million per annum on current account.
  But the Coal Board has been almost breaking even. To quote from paragraph I of the Board's Report and Accounts for 1966–67, that is the last chargeable period ended 31st May last:
  "Operating profit on the Board's activities in 1966–67 amounted to £28·5 million. Interest paid was £28·2 million and the surplus on the Board's accounts was £0·3 million."
  of £300,000 profit on a year's operations.
  How is it then that subsection (2) now talks about an annual deficit of £20 million or £25 million in each of the two years of the duration of the operations flowing from the Bill, whereas, in the last full year, the Board made a small profit? What has caused this dramatic change in
  1286
  its financial operations? To quote from paragraph 2 of the Report and Accounts:
  "The improvement in the industry's results was largely due to a surge in output and productivity in the latter part of the year. In their Report for 1965–66, the Board said (see paragraph 24) that too rapid a rundown in manpower might prevent the industry from realising its full potential."
  But a purpose of the Bill is to prevent any acceleration in the rundown of manpower, and one would therefore suppose that the financial achievements of the Board in each of the next two years should be not less favourable than that in the year ended 31st March, 1966.
  Effectively and shortly, how does the Parliamentary Secretary account for the fact that, in this short period of 12 to 18 months, there should be a turnover from a small profit to a large deficit of possibly £20 million to £25 million, with a rundown of manpower in the coming two years which is said to be at a rate not larger than the rundown in the last full year?
  My second question flows from the intervention of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) in the Minister's speech on the previous Amendment, about opencast coal. It is notorious financially that opencast operations are extremely profitable. The Report and Account says:
  "The Board's opencast production made an operating profit of £7·5 million, or 22s. 2d. a ton. The average cost of production was 80s. 7d. a ton."
  That last price for opencast coal compares with 100s. 7d. a ton, average pithead price, for deep-mined coal, so opencast coal is reported £1 a ton cheaper, and, on a very limited output of only a few million tons, the Board made the huge profit of £7·5 million on opencast operations last year.
  It follows from that that if the deficit budgeting for each of the two forthcoming years is about £25 million a year, and if there is to be a profit on opencast mining of £7·5 million a year, the real loss envisaged on deep-mined coal is £32·5 million a year in each of the two years ahead covered by the Bill.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: The profit on opencast mining mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is before interest has been paid, and, of course, 25 per cent.

  1287
  of the total amount of deep-mined coal is produced at 77s. 9d. a ton, which is below the opencast sum.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not dispute that and I will not conduct an analytical survey of mining figures. I repeat that the average pithead price of deep-mined coal in Britain is 100s. 7d. a ton, based on last year's activities, while the average price of opencast coal, based on last year's activities, was 80s. 7d. a ton. The two are strictly comparable figures.
  What has caused this dramatic change in the financial fortunes of the Board? Whereas in 1966–67, after meeting all charges and after paying a very heavy interest charge, the Board still turned in a tiny profit of £300,000. In this Measure we are talking about a deficit of a maximum of £50 million at the end of any chargeable accounting period flowing from the Bill's operations. That is much too big a change-over from profit to loss to pass unnoticed and unchallenged. I therefore warmly support my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and congratulate him, as always, on his Parliamentary perspicacity in tabling the Amendment.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Now lick him all over.
  Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is both indelicate and vulgar. As a protest against his continued sedentary interventions in what was intended to be an important financial contribution to our deliberations, I resume my seat.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I will reply to some of the points raised by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will deal with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) first and, in doing so, I will confine my remarks to the matters in question and try to avoid elaboration by adjective.
  The hon. Member for Worcestershire. South asked for reasons for the change in the Board's financial position from a £0·3 million surplus last year to a position in which we shall have to budget or allow for continuing deficits over the next few years. The hon. Gentleman quoted at some length from the Board's last Annual Report. Had he continued
  1288
  to quote from the same series of paragraphs he would have been able to indicate in some detail the answer to his own question.
  He quoted from paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 3 refers to the effects on the industry's finances of the recession in the economy and an exceptionally mild winter. It goes on to refer to increased expenditure on materials, stores, power supplies, local rates and so on.
  It also refers to the additional expenditure in which the Board was involved as a result of the National Union of Seamen's strike last year in putting to stock and later picking up over 1½ million tons of coal and coke. These were some of a whole series of factors which were forecast last year in the Board's Annual Report as affecting the Board's finances.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: When the hon. Gentleman refers to increases in prices, was he quoting an increased amount of materials obtained from private enterprise, or did the price go up for the machinery being sold?
  Mr. Freeson: I understand that the Board was referring to increased costs, and not the increased quantities, as such. Those are the reasons specified, and they are reasons which one has to repeat in explaining the changing situation.
  A question was then put about deep mining, as compared with opencasting, and the Annual Report to which reference has been made gives just the information for which the hon. Member was, in fact, asking. If he would look at the paragraph preceding that from which he quoted about opencast mining, he will see that on page 2 it is stated:
  "The operating profit at the Board's collieries was £17·7 millions or 2s. 2d. a ton. The average cost of production was 98s. 5d. a ton."
  Then there is a table of figures showing costs.
  I should like to go back to the first point which was made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment who asked in general terms for an explanation of the increased figure which he sought to reduce by the Amendment. The object of the increase is to make provision for covering possible deficits in the current year and up to 1970–71. After the capital reconstruction authorised under the 1965 Act, the Board aimed to

  1289
  earn each year a revenue surplus of £10 millions. This would have been used to bridge the gap, and in 1966–67—the first year—the surplus amounted to £300,000. On present trends, however, there may be a deficit of £10 millions this year, although the revenue earned up to 1970–71 will depend upon coal price policy, policies about uneconomic pits, and matters which cannot be calculated accurately in advance.
  Mr. Lubbock: Why is there this worsening position from a profit of £300,000 last year to a deficit of £10 millions this year?
  Mr. Freeson: The Board was indicating the worsening position in which it was and—
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman said that certain factors had affected the Board adversely, but paragraph 3 of the Report states quite clearly that
  "Other factors contributed to the improved linances of the industry".
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not wish to weary the Committee by giving lengthy quotations from the Report, but the hon. Gentleman opposite might have put matters into better balance—into correct balance—by quoting from the first page of the Report,
  "The financial position of the industry was, however, strengthened by the continuing effects of the capital reconstruction announced in November, 1965".
  I would remind the Committee what that capital reconstruction was. It was the writing off of many millions of accumulated losses and it was that which enabled the Board to go into the "black" in a normal operating year rather than to stay in the "red". I must say that this is a most curious time to announce a deficit of £10 million, post-devaluation, after a profit last year.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Freeson: A series of non sequiturs is being put by the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I repeat—it is a non sequitur. Unfortunately, the hon. Member will keep quoting just little bits and pieces from paragraphs when he should deal with the full context. The financial strengthening to which he referred when speaking of the last Annual Report of the Board was connected with internal financial arrangements, as the rest of the paragraph from which he
  1290
  quoted makes quite clear. However, I do not intend to pursue this matter in any great detail, as it is not particularly germane to the question before us—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Freeson: No. I was saying in answer to the first point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil that in view of the difficulty—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Sir Eric. Are we not in Committee, and is not the whole object of the Committee stage to allow these things to be examined in detail? Is it right for the Parliamentary Secretary to resist our convention, and not allow himself to be cross-examined?
  The Chairman: The Minister decides in his own discretion when he will give way and when he will not.
  Mr. Freeson: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the points put to me by the hon. Member for Yeovil. I was saying that in view of the difficulties facing the Board in the next few years, it is necessary to provide for a possible deficit of the kind to which I have referred—[Interruption.]
  The Chairman: Order. We really cannot go on if we have sedentary interruptions on both sides. Mr. Freeson.
  Mr. Freeson rose—
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way for a moment? If he were a collier, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), that he should get in the manhole out of the way.
  Mr. Freeson: As a matter of fact, if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself, I was about, at the end of the sentence, to resume my seat.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the Parliamentary Secretary accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) of muddying the waters by not explaining the position clearly, he is in a position to straighten it out. Can he explain—whether or not his hon. Friends want the information, I do not know—why we have this acceleration of the deficit from £0·3 million to £10 million? It should be on the record, so that we can know.
  Mr. Freeson: I am accusing no one of muddying the waters, but I would refer the hon. Member to the latest Report of the Board—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not read it."]
  To return to the original general point put to me by the hon. Member for Yeovil, I would say that in view of the difficulties we are expecting the N.C.B. to face over the next few years we must provide for the possible deficit that may arise. The sum included must be related in our minds, as well as in practice, to a turnover that will be more than £800 million a year. Over the four years in question, the £50 million laid down in the Bill represents less than 1½ per cent. of turnover.
  I have tried as best I can to give the reasons for the changing position. Without going into an accountancy exercise which it would not be my responsibility to undertake this evening, I have tried to give some of the general reasons for which the hon. Member for Yeovil asked.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Cannot my hon. Friend give a better explanation why we should permit to be written into the Bill a proposition that there will be a deficit in an undertaking which should be showing a profit and which, if it were run on a businesslike basis, would show a substantial one?
  Mr. Freeson: I refer my hon. Friend to the Annual Report, where he will see stated at some length the reasons for the changing position. I have referred to these. This Bill deals with the situation facing the industry. I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I had not intended to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I do not want to speak on the detailed terms of the Amendment.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member knows nothing about it.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I know enough about it to know that we are being fobbed off by a very inept Parliamentary performance. It is not just a matter of criticising the Parliamentary Secretary; there are certain rights which Parliament must insist upon.
  Mr. Swain rose—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will give way to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) in a moment because he does know what he is talking about. When the Parliamentary Secretary has questions put to him to explain the deficit, which is of some importance to this nation, he should not try to put us off by asking us to read the Report. The whole object is for him to explain the Report as he sees it. Whether we have read the Report or not is irrelevant. Parliament does not insist that hon. Members must read all the reports placed before them, but when a Minister is responsible he is asked for a summary of reports and Members of Parliament are entitled to an answer. We have not had that.
  Mr. Swain: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind him that if he did not consume so much natural gas produced by his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) he might be able to understand these things better.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member referred to natural gas, but his hon. Friend accused my hon. Friend of using unnatural gas.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to speak again without leave being given. He should give his version of how this deficit has come about.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words because it seems that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) spoke in temper and was not rational in his approach to this problem.
  Whether the Coal Board made a profit this year, last year or the year before, can be checked by the Accounts. In the Accounts we find that the income of the Board fluctuates each year. In 1966–67 it was up by £40 million on the year before and in the year before that it was up by £46 million on the previous year. Obviously the Board and the Government expect that this next year there will be a drop in the income of the Board. If we sell less coal the income is bound to go down. If we increase capital investments to make sure that the industry is more efficient, that will cost more. If the amount of coal produced is less, the average burden per ton is greater.

  1293
  If the Opposition want to restrict the amount of money allocated to the Board to make it more difficult for it to carry on, the Opposition must remember that the industry is going along a tortuous path. We are dealing with human beings. If the Opposition want pit closures to come more rapidly so that less coal is produced, that will make it more difficult to cater for the men who will be displaced. Those men have to be looked after. When the demand for coal was greater than the supply the nation's industries had cheap coal, and the Coal Board was not allowed by the Tory Government to put up its prices, and it could not build up its reserves. Now that there is an excessive amount of coal it is up to the Government and the Opposition to try to help the industry and the men in it, to make certain that there is no great hardship to individuals. I hope that the Opposition will treat the matter more humanely and not with tongue in cheek as they are treating it at present.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I want only to make two small points. I did not intend to intervene. I know that it is strange for an hon. Member for an agricultural constituency to start talking about coal, but my constituents have to pay towards the deficit. We should have a better explanation than we have had. I do not see why every back-bencher is expected to read Reports of the Coal Board, the Ministry of Agriculture, and so on, on every subject.
  Mr. Swain rose—
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: I do not intend to give way.
  East Anglia suffers from receiving nothing but bad coal. If we are to have to pay towards the deficit, we should receive decent coal.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: The industry is going through a very difficult period. The miners must be treated properly, and I recognise that there will be a big deficit for some years. But back-benchers are entitled to a proper explanation for the loss.
  Mrs. Thatcher: I shall be brief. I had intended to intervene, and I have read the relevant Reports.
  In the 1965 Act we wrote off an accumulated revenue deficit of £91 million, in order that the Coal Board might start with a clean slate, and there was also provision for a £30 million deficit to last the rest of the lifetime of the Act. After that, the National Board for Prices and Incomes granted a price increase M the following terms:
  "The National Coal Board have proposed increases in the pithead price of coal in order to recover an estimated deficit of £80 million in 1966–67 and to meet the prospect of greater deficits thereafter."
  The accumulated deficit was written off and a price increase was given to meet all prospective deficits, in spite of which there was still a saving clause of a permissible deficit of £30 million. No reasoning that we have yet heard has been sufficient to increase that amount of deficit in the face of the price increase given, and I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to a Division.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I should not have intervened but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It was highly impertinent of him to say, "I am from an agricultural constituency and my people pay their price for coal". Miners have paid subsidies to agriculturists for many years. It is an insult to the House and to the miners for a remark of that kind to come from the hon. Member opposite. It would have been far better had he not come into the Chamber at the last moment to listen to the debate.
  We must realise that we are dealing with a grave problem for the industry. The Amendment would leave out a subsection which deals with many matters which are important for the industry and I recommend hon. Members to vote against it.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peyton: May I say a few words? I was surprised that the Amendment brought out from the Parliamentary Secretary, almost as a chance aside, that it was too bad but there might be a loss of £10,500,000 this year. He said that there had been difficulties, and even the strike of the National Union of Seamen

  1295
  was trotted out, with one or two other things like that.
  This microcosm of a discussion on this question is abundant justification for the attitude of the Opposition to these matters. I profoundly believe that this country will never come to its senses or have any chance of getting out of its present mess while it is prepared to continue in this, the central form of Government, the attitude of levity towards many millions of pounds which have to be hard earned by someone else.
  I do not wish to be too rough with the Parliamentary Secretary, but he must stand condemned for what appeared to be, at least from this side, a very flippant answer to a serious question. I have no difficulty or diffidence whatever in echoing everything which was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and I echo her advice that we should divide the Committee in protest.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I spoke before my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and at a good deal greater length. I had no idea, in supporting this Amendment, that it would wring from the reluctant lips of the Parliamentary Secretary a confession that the Board has lost nearly £11 million this year. I say unhesitatingly that the characteristics of the Coal Board finances today are profligate, casual, cavalier, and flippant. In the present economic troubles of the country the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be stigmatised for what it is—utterly disgraceful. Never shall I walk through the Lobbies with greater joy in my heart than tonight.
  Mr. Ogden: The Parliamentary Secretary has come in for some extremely unfair criticism from the Opposition benches. When he is under fire from the Opposition at least he is sure of our support, although there may be differences between hon. Members on this side. These personal attacks were made upon him for refusing at 11.30 at night to give answers to questions which have already been answered since the debate started at 6.45 p.m. The questions were asked by hon. Members who rolled in late to ask questions to which they ought to know the answers.
  Mr. Freeson: I was accused by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) of
  1296
  being flippant. There is a good deal more flippancy from hon. Members opposite in their asides than there is from this side of the Committee, either from me or from my hon. Friends. It has been suggested that I gave no reasons for the changing financial position of the industry. Not only was I not offhand in my remarks but if hon. Members did not hear some of the reasons I gave they should read HANSARD tomorrow, because they will see that I referred to the source of information that is available to all hon. Members who wish to take part in a debate of this kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has nothing to do with it."] I wish hon. Members would not keep interrupting. "It has nothing to do with it." There have been many personal remarks about me and some unnecessary adjectives used by an hon. Member who has now left the Chamber.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I have not left the Chamber. I am sitting here watching.
  Mr. Freeson: I know that it is getting late and that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) likes to entertain us from time to time but do not let us have too many shocks like his sitting on this side of the Committee.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I was not. I was talking to an hon. Member.
  Mr. Freeson: I want to refer back to some of the reasons I gave. It has been suggested that I am treating the matter in an offhand fashion. It has been stated clearly by the Coal Board—and I presume that hon. Members will accept these reasons—that the change in the financial position is because the industry had less results than expected from the increased prices; because of the recession in the economy; because of the exceptionally mild winter which affected coal sales last year; because of rising costs under a wide range of headings to which I referred and because of additional expenditure on stocking arising directly from the seamen's strike.
  I referred in my speech to the general position of the industry. I was surprised at the rather over-intensive manner in which the hon. Lady was so quick to support the Amendment. She knows as well as we do, even if some of her hon. Friends do not—although she does not want to play it up too much—that the industry is in a serious transitional phase.

  1297
  It is rightly important for the industry that costs in terms of productivity or efficiency, or whatever heading one chooses, should come into balance with sales, and with price levels in relation to other fuels. That is the difficulty the industry is facing. It is making tremendous efforts, successful and effective efforts, to increase productivity. There are, again, examples in the Report, which hon. Members should read—and I am not directing this advice to the hon. Lady but to some of the more vociferous interventionists.
  There is abundant evidence in the Report of the effective action being taken by the industry to increase productivity and efficiency, which is going to make for sensible, sound and competitive price levels in future. We are catering in this Bill for a transitional period of years. That is what all this is about. That is the issue. Therefore, we have to accept that the industry is financially going to be out of balance during this transitional period. The hon. Lady herself said so. She said that even following the 1965 Act, before it was known about the increased prices, it was expected that there would be a £30 million deficit.
  We are expecting to move into a more transitional period soon. [Laughter.] It is not a joke. I say to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that this is a serious situation. The industry is moving into a serious situation. We are aware of it and that is what the major debate is about. We have to assist the industry to get into a sound technical and economic position so that it can be competitive. That is why it is important to provide for the deficits which are bound to arise against the background I have described earlier and which I have now recapitulated.
  Mr. Peter Emery: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer one short question which I tried to suggest that he might answer before he concluded? He referred to a possible deficit during the current year of about £10 million. This is not in the Annual Report or in any information that we could previously have had. It is entirely new. Therefore, I want to make certain that we understood the hon. Gentleman clearly. Can he tell us how the £10 million is made up?
  Mr. Freeson: As I indicated earlier, I am not in a position to give any makeup of the figure by any kind of accountancy exercise. If I did not make it clear before, I do so now. It is expected that this will be the range in the intervening years between now and 1971.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I was amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He referred us to the Annual Report. He should appreciate that hon. Members on this side have read the Annual Report, in which we see the reasons why there was a profit of only just under £½ million last year.
  Among the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, he mentioned the recession in the economy, but that was in respect of 1966–67, a year in which a small profit was made. He referred to the mild winter. That was last year, not this year, when the hon. Gentleman expects a £10 million deficit. He referred to the effect of the seamen's strike. That was last year, not this year, when he is talking about a deficit. He referred to expenditure on the social cost of an accelerated colliery closure programme, but we are not to have an accelerated colliery closure programme.
  Every one of the reasons given in the Annual Report explained why we had a profit of only £300,000. All those factors should result not in a loss this year, but in an improvement of the situation. The simple question asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others was why there is a loss this year. All that the Parliamentary Secretary has done is to give a series of reasons, as outlined in the Annual Report, why we did not make a £10 million profit last year.
  When we are being asked to approve a loss of £10 million, we should know the reason for it. That is the question which the hon. Gentleman has not answered. Every one of the reasons which he has given does not explain a loss of £10 million but explains why the result should be better. We will not have a seamen's strike this year, we may not have a mild winter and we may have an improvement in the economy. All these things should improve the position and

  1299
  not worsen it. The least that we are entitled to from the Minister is a proper explanation.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 96, Noes 154.

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES

  [11.43 p.m.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Percival, Ian

  Boardman, Thomas (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Peyton, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Pym, Francis

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)

  Holland, Philip

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hunt, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Silvester, Frederick

  Clegg, Walter

  Jopling, Michael

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cooke, Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Smith, John

  Cordle, John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Lane, David

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Tilney, John

  Doughty, Charles

  Lubbock, Eric

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Emery, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Webster, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Fair, John

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  More, Jasper

  Mr. Timothy Kitson and

  Gower, Raymond

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Archer, Peter

  Ellis, John

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ennals, David

  Keller, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Ensor, David

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Barnett, Joel

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Baxter, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Beaney, Alan

  Finch, Harold

  Lawson, George

  Bence, Cyril

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Ledger, Ron

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Blackburn, F.

  Gardner, Tony

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gourlay, Harry

  McBride, Neil

  Booth, Albert

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Boston, Terence

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamling, William

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hannan, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Haseldine, Norman

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Henig, Stanley

  Marks, Kenneth

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hooley, Frank

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Horner, John

  Mason, Roy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Howie, W.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hoy, James

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Dell, Edmund

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dickens, James

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Doig, Peter

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Murray, Albert

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Neal, Harold

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ogden, Eric

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Orbach, Maurice

  Ryan, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Orme, Stanley

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Oswald, Thomas

  Sheldon, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Pentland, Norman

  Swain, Thomas

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Tavarne, Dick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Winnick, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tinn, James

  Woof, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Yates, Victor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Rose, Paul

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Mr. Eric G. Varley and

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  The Chairman: I think that Clause I has been adequately discussed and I therefore proposed to put the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  (GRANTS IN CONNECTION WITH PIT CLOSURES.)
  Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 10, leave out '£45,000,000' and insert '£40,000,000'.
  The Chairman: With this can be discussed Amendment No. 43, in Schedule, page 6, line 22, leave out '£45,000,000' and insert '£40,000,000.'
  Mr. Peyton: For the reasons given earlier, I would much prefer large sums of money not to be immediately voted without Parliament keeping control over them. I see that the Leader of the House is present and I hope that he is having second thoughts about this exercise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I hope that he is having second thoughts about this exercise. [HON. MEMBERS: get on with it."] I hope that he is carrying on an effective conversation with the Government Deputy Chief Whip. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members barking at me, although I know what the Prime Minister said about them. If I can peacefully interrupt the interesting conversation which the Leader of the House is having with the Government Deputy Chief Whip—
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. Would you interpret to the House, Mr. Grant-Ferris, what the hon. Gentleman is talking about? Is he speaking to the Amendment, or merely making remarks about hon. Members?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): I am the sole judge of whether anything is in order. As soon as it is out of order, I shall say so.
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to you for your help, Mr. Grant-Ferris. I was endeavouring only to get a slight hearing as the peace of the Committee was being shattered by the loud conversation between the Leader of the House and the Deputy Chief Whip. [Interruption.] I am perfectly prepared to stand here for a long time and indefinitely to repeat an accurate account of what happened. If hon. Members ask me to do it again, I am quite willing to do so.—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman is going."]—I have been blamed for many things in my time but it would be grossly unfair if blame were laid on my blameless shoulders for getting rid of the Leader of the House.
  The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. Roy Mason): He was just showing contempt for nonsense.
  Mr. Peyton: I cannot remember who the Minister is who is sitting on the Front Bench, but he specialises in interventions when sitting down, not having been here before them. If he wishes to stand up—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the terms of the Amendment. When he comes to the terms of the Amendment, I hope that the rest of the Committee will listen in reasonable silence.
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged for your protection, Mr. Grant-Ferris, but I fail to see why I should be called to order when I have to put up with rude and impertinent interventions from the Treasury Bench, from Ministers who should wish to get the business and have

  1303
  not the sense to keep their traps shut. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not in the least bothered. I am happy to listen to the kennel opposite yapping its way through the night.
  If I may get back to the Amendment, it suggests that the £45 million proposed in the Clause is too large, at any rate initially, and should be reduced. We have already been at length over the ground and have suggested that we would rather not vote these excessively large sums of money for the National Coal Board in one move. This is not to say that the House would not be prepared to vote the sums required on a further report to the House by the Minister. It is for this purpose that I move the Amendment.
  There is no great magic in the figure, but I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Ministers concerned with raising from the taxpayers, through Parliament, these very large sums, to come back to Parliament after a certain time and get the full amount they require. The spectacle of the party opposite supporting the Government who are in deep water today, while mocking the arguments of financial stringency and financial discipline makes me fear for the future of the country.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: There is a lot of merit in the principle behind my hon. Friend's argument. As he said, the figures do not mean anything, but the merit is this: it is quite clear from the speeches we have heard from the Minister and from the Parliamentary Secretary that the problems facing this industry are coming thick and fast and that they change the position. The situation the Ministry envisage one minute is completely changed the next minute. We had a good example explained by one of my hon. Friends on the last Amendment. If we can we should find some way of bringing the question of this vital industry before the House more often.
  12 m.
  I would have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would have had lots of support from hon. Gentlemen opposite on this. They have shown their concern, and I
  1304
  congratulate them on the way that they have been able to marshal their forces and bring their points of view to the attention of the Treasury Bench over the last few months, and certainly over the last few weeks. It would have been a good thing not to have left it to the discretion of the Minister of Power, who, whilst he is able, has, of necessity, to protect his Department and the people who run it. Of course, the one way that he can protect his Department is by keeping its problems outside the House of Commons. If something can be kept within one's Department and not have to face the probes and examination once it is brought to the floor of the House—
  Mr. Albert Roberts: The hon. Member should bear in mind that a National Coal Board Report has not been debated since 1961.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: All the more reason why we should learn from that. It has not been debated, and we have seen the result affecting this industry very badly. It has disturbed all of us, and nobody is more disturbed than those who represent mining constituencies.
  Human nature being what it is, I know that the Minister will not want to neglect his job—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will ever lack enthusiasm for wanting to do his job well—but there is all the difference in the world between the Treasury Bench and the back benches and there is all the difference in the world between the executive and Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of his Department he is doing his duty within the Department by trying to save embarrassment at having to give explanations half way through a particular exercise. The Department likes to keep it out of Parliament. It is a useful thing for any Department to be able to go for a good length of time doing what it thinks is right and doing the best it can without having to face a probe.
  If there is one industry in the country which ought, over the next two or three years, to go through the perpetual Parliamentary examination to see that the direction taken is the right one, it is the coal industry. This is a serious point. If the Minister can find some way of implementing the principle that my hon. Friend has set out, without accepting the

  1305
  figures which appear on the Order Paper, I am sure that he would be doing the right thing. But I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Treasury Bench is as much their enemy as it is the enemy of the Opposition on this. The Departmental heads want to hide from its gaze, just as much as it does the Opposition, the problems which are facing them.
  Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman says that the Treasury Bench is just as much the enemy of the back benches as the Opposition.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I said "of the Opposition".
  Mr. Swain: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that I would sooner trust any Member of the Government Front Bench than any Member on the benches opposite.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: There were 19 votes in the Lobby last night which did not reflect that point of view, but that was yesterday and I suppose that today is today. However, I make the point that the Treasury Bench is the enemy of the rest of Parliament, whether the Opposition or those sitting on the back benches on the Government side. In nine cases out of ten it does not matter, but every now and again we get a problem in an industry, such as the coal industry, where it is up to both sides to join together to see that we get a full and proper answer.
  All that my hon. Friend has done in the Amendment is to give one suggestion showing how we can accomplish that. If we do not grant the Board the money that it thinks it might want over a long period it means that it will have to keep—[interruption]—if hon. Gentlemen opposite will keep their fingers on this Department and keep it short of money so that it has to keep coming back for more, they will make certain that their constituents' interests are properly looked after. It is because the Amendment would entail that happening that I am supporting my hon. Friend, but I would have expected more support from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I realise that the Amendment must be read in conjunction with the 1965 Act. I rise to speak on it because my principal objective in seeing that these Clauses are
  1306
  passed is to ensure that miners in my constituency are retained in their present employment until new jobs are available for them.
  I have had some difficulty in obtaining the facts. I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to give details at the end of the Second Reading debate, or that we might have heard more since, either by letter, or in the debates today. Certainly the Minister gave some indication of the number of pits which would be closed in 1968. The closure of the 16 pits which was postponed by the Prime Minister from September to 31st December are the 16 which, under exceptional circumstances, could be kept open until 31st March. From the way that the Minister spoke this evening, it perhaps gave some indication that their closure could be postponed still further, and I would be pleased to know whether that is possible, because in the area of the colliery in which I am particularly interested—and this applies to most of the Scottish areas where closures are imminent—it is most unlikely that new jobs can be found by next spring.
  Mr. Marsh: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he is on Clause 4, and not Clause 2.
  Mr. Monro: I accept that there is a great intermingling of the various Clauses. The money to which I am referring is relevant to the grants which can be used in respect of pit closures. I therefore think that the information which I am seeking has a bearing on this, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to provide it before we pass this Clause.
  I am speaking against my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because I think that under the exceptional circumstances of the moment, with high unemployment in the mining areas, the money which is suggested in this Clause will be necessary. This is why I support the Clause.
  Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the point that I was trying to make. I hope that he will apply his mind to it. I am not denying that money is necessary. Nor am I saying that it will not eventually be spent. I am saying that the House of Commons should maintain some control over the N.C.B., in

  1307
  which my confidence, to put it politely, is limited.
  Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for that further explanation. I have listened to his earlier speeches, and I support him in what he said about the borrowing powers. From what he said, I take it that he is extremely critical of the Board, and so am I on certain measures, but, on the question of colliery closures, I think that the recommendation put forward by the Government will be valuable.
  Mr. Freeson: I hope that it will not be taken as discourtesy if I do not seek to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), because he was not really speaking to the Amendment before us, or the Clause to which it refers.
  As we are challenged to recapitulate the position of the finances referred to in the Clause, I shall be only too glad to go over the background and set out the position. Before doing so, perhaps I should say, as much stress has been placed on the need for this House to maintain a check on the finances of the Board and its activities generally, that this year. with the debate in July, the Second Reading debate, and tonight's Committee proceedings, we are paying more attention to the financial and other aspects of the Board than has been the case, I imagine, for the preceding five years put together, including the years when the previous Administration was in charge.
  I do not think it can be said accurately that we are not paying attention to Parliamentary control or concern for the affairs of the industry, but the position we are in tonight with this particular part of the Bill is, as was stated at one point by the hon. Member for Dumfries when he was speaking to the Amendment, that it follows on from the position under the 1965 Act.
  In July of this year, in the debate to which I have referred, the Minister undertook to review some of the present benefits payable by the N.C.B. which rank for Government grant under the 1965 Act, and to do so in the light of the estimates of the numbers of men leaving the industry or transferring to new jobs within the industry.
  1308
  At that time he explained that the benefits were important, and they remain important, to ease the obstacles to payment which has to be made in this situation of the industry, and to reduce these obstacles to a minimum.
  The existing arrangement is one which should be accepted by all good employers with any sense of social obligation, and certainly the N.C.B. has been acting in that spirit over the years. It takes into account also the economic position of the industry and it is something which we have to review because of the changing position which has been the subject of much debate inside and outside the House of Commons in recent months.
  Under the 1965 Act, the N.C.B. paid £3·8 million of expenditure each year, and half of the remainder. The estimate of the total cost of these grants for the five years to 1971 was expected to be about £80 million at that time, and the total Government contribution was to be limited to £30 million. Expenses ranking for grants from the Exchequer covered three broad headings: payments to ease the problems of transferring men within the industry; payments for social welfare activities; and payments to redundant men.
  The numbers transferring within the industry, although reducing, will, however, require an increased scale of benefits being paid for by the industry, or would have were it not for the Bill, owing to the greater distances over which the miners have had to travel in order to take up employment to which they are transferred.
  The cost of the new supplementary income benefit for mine workers will be carried under the proposals in the Bill by the Treasury, and the cost of reimbursing the Coal Board's superannuation funds for premature pensions will also be so carried. But the redundancy payments will fall to be met by the N.C.B., and the increased numbers of salaried employees of the Board becoming redundant still impose a substantial burden.
  The estimate of the total cost of benefits still to be paid over the remaining four years up to 1971 will be about £70 million. The Government, taking into account the financial position of the Board, has therefore decided it would be right for the Treasury to bear two-thirds

  1309
  of the cost to the Board for each of these four years up to the limit of £45 million.
  The effect will be to transfer £5 million a year of the cost to the Exchequer, together with the total cost of supplementary benefits for elderly miners aged 55 and upwards which will approximate to £11,500,000 net during this period over the next four years.
  There is, too, the industrial as well as the social aspect. Not only is this desirable socially, but the industry will benefit from concentration of production and the transfer of skilled men to more productive jobs. The main point in our minds in these debates is that the community must accept a social obligation to help the large force of men affected by the changes in the industry, about which we are concerned in these debates.
  12.15 a m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It will be more opportune to discuss the grants themselves on the next Amendment, which seeks to transfer more of the responsibility for the grants to the Exchequer. I will reserve my remarks on the grants themselves to that occasion.
  I support my hon. Friend's attempt to ensure that the Government will come back to the House earlier to find further monies on all these grants and loans. The Minister seems to take the arrogant attitude that Parliament is a last formality after they have made up their minds. Evidence of this is the Supplementary Estimate published last week asking for £3,968,000 more in respect of the £45 million grant in the Bill.
  I submit that Supplementary Estimates should not be put in for sums deriving from Bills which the House has not passed. The assumption is made in this Estimate that we shall agree to this £45 million and a further similar amount in another Clause, plus other moneys in other Clauses, as if it were a foregone conclusion that the House would not alter the grants. It is only tactful to wait until the House has passed the legislation before claiming the money in this form.
  The grants in Clause 2 are about the only ores which Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer would approve. He will not consent to most of the latter ones. I believe, when the Chancellor writes to
  1310
  him, as he will have to do, to ask his permission to pay them.
  I suggest to my hon. Friend, therefore, that we let this £45 million go through and discuss its merits on the next Amendment, because this series of grants is to be commended. I reinforce his plea, however, that, with an industry in serious trouble like the coal industry, the Government should come back to the House regularly with progress reports and requests for further sums so that the House can judge the progress of the industry.
  Mr. Peyton: With my usual humility, I will take my hon. Friend's advice and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 11, leave out from `date' to end of line 16.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): I understand that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments No. 48, in page 2, line 10, leave out '1971' and insert '1972'; No. 49, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'four' and insert 'five'; and No. 11, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'two thirds of'.
  Mr. Peyton: This Amendment echoes the sentiments we have expressed throughout our debates on the Bill. It seeks to require the N.C.B. to contribute half the expense and leave the other half to the Exchequer, instead of following the course proposed by the Bill of making the Exchequer provide two thirds of the amount. I will not labour the argument at this hour because I have already sufficiently adduced my case about how I feel convinced that I can have no confidence in the Board's capacity to control its expenditure properly. When dealing not with one's own money but with money which has come straight out of the Exchequer it is tempting to lose control of expenditure.
  Mr. Ogden: Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 in my name are linked with the one moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my proposals. Under the Bill as drafted—if none of these Amendments is accepted—a total

  1311
  of £45 million will be available for a period of four years. I propose that the sum should remain the same but that the period should be extended to five years. Thus, the £45 million would remain unchanged and only the period would be increased.
  The Minister has often quoted from the Blue Paper on fuel policy, Cmnd. 3438. It is interesting to note that paragraph 6 states:
  "The Government's aim has been to lay down long-term policy guidelines which can be modified and adjusted in response to new developments and to provide a coherent framework within which specific decisions can be taken as the need for them arises. Within this context, future decisions need to be based on up-to-date information; there will be periodical revisions of the relevant economic analyses and estimates in the light of changing circumstances; and the Government will keep policy under continuing review. Thus, if present forecasts prove wrong—as in some respects they certainly will—there is scope for adjustment from year to year."
  Hon. Members have referred to the fallacy of previous forecasts and the difficulty of forecasting. It would be wise and prudent, instead of limiting this sum to be made available for only four years—and one hopes that there will be a residual sum—to state, without increasing the total sum available, that if there is anything left over at the end of the four years, it may be made available for the fifth year for contingency planning. I hope that my right hon. Friend will indicate that he will consider this either here or in another place.
  Mr. Marsh: The problem which arises here is an understandable one for we are drawing what must inevitably be an arbitrary figure for the contribution from the Exchequer as opposed to that from the Board. First of all, there is a strong feeling that the provisions under the 1965 Act were too onerous so far as the Board is concerned, and that view is held, not only by the Board, but by the union as well.
  It is with all modesty that I say I must perhaps be the only Minister in the House who can expect to have opposition from both sides at one and the same time, and tonight provides no exception. From one side—or, rather, from both sides—I am told that the Exchequer contribution is too high, and at the same time I am told that it is too low; so
  1312
  I think that, perhaps, the figure we are suggesting is about right. Yet I think that the Committee will agree that there is no amount which anybody can produce before us and say, "This is the right figure". It is right that the Board should carry a proportion of the burden; it is good for the morale of the industry that it should not feel it is living on the Exchequer, and it is right from the point of view of ordinary commercial practice. The industry will benefit from the concentration of production and the transfer of men to more productive jobs within the industry, and it is this which provides part of the cost.
  That is so far as the industry is concerned. The community will benefit in that it has also an obligation to meet part of the cost, and the first consideration is that the £3·8 million bloc—the Board has to pay that—is a quite unrealistic figure. Amounts of that order, which cannot be met, are better if they are squarely faced and the first point is to abandon the first £3·8 million.
  Under the 1965 Act, the Board has to meet pound for pound of the Exchequer contribution after the first £3·8 million and, again, I cannot produce any absolutely right proportion. It is a matter of judgment but, personally, I think that the pound for pound formula was unrealistic and unreasonable. However, as I have said, there is much to be said for the Board carrying some of the burden. So, we have changed this to a one-third contribution instead of one-half and, as a result, it is estimated that the difference between now and 1971 will be about £11,250,000. I do not underestimate the size of that figure, but, in the context of the size of the exercise which is going on, this is not an unreasonable increase in the Exchequer's contribution either from the economic standpoint or from the point of view of the social reasons to which I have referred.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) made the point quite clearly that it might be reasonable to extend the period from 1971 to 1972. I would say to him that, here again, this is inevitably an arbitrary decision, but what we have done all the time since the exercise first started after the passing of the 1965 Act is to work with 1971 in mind. That is three years ahead

  1313
  and, so far as anybody can say, that is as far as we can see. On many occasions we shall have to look at what is happening in fact. Much comment has been made about the need to debate this industry, but I should have thought that in the last year we have debated it more than in the previous four years. That is right, because it is important, and there will be many other debates between now and 1971. I hear the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) say "More money". That may or may not be the case. I have a feeling that we will be discussing the coal industry again before 1971, and I put it no higher than that.
  I therefor suggest to my hon. Friends and to hon. Members opposite that this is a question of balance in the light of the size of the problem which the industry faces. I cannot prove that two-thirds is the right figure, I cannot prove that 1971 is better than 1972, but what the Bill sees to do is to draw a new balance which gives the Board a chance of meeting its obligations, and places a bigger load on the Treasury—at considerable cost—and enables us to keep our eyes fixed on 1971 in the knowledge that as we get into 1968, and again in 1969, the picture will be changing all the time. All the way along we are trying to give the industry a period in which to see how far it can get—and it is a big increase and will be more—and how far it will be able to press on along these lines. With those remarks, Mr. Grant-Ferris, I ask hon. Members if they would now be prepared to accept the Bill as it stands in this context.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Richard Kelley: We want the Minister to look at our Amendment on the ground that as in 1965 it was recognised by the then Minister that the Treasury had some obligation to meet the cost of the transference of men and of the contraction of the industry, so, as the contraction is now likely to be accelerated and much more severe, the Treasury should be prepared to accept the full responsibility. We want to leave out the words "two thirds of".
  Unless the Board is allowed to concentrate production on the most efficient units we shall never have the kind of industry of which the Minister has often
  1314
  talked as making a strong and vital contribution to our energy requirements. In order to carry out this exercise in concentration the Board must meet an ever-increasing burden. There have been occasions when men have moved from one pit to another, where they have had only a few months of work there before having to move on again. Only on Saturday a man came to see me who had already moved four times—three times in Scotland and once down into England—and now works at a pit that is at risk. If such movement of labour has to be undertaken by the industry on the present basis, even though it appears to be much more generous than the 1965 arrangement, there will be a burden which it should not be asked to bear, and one which no other industry has to bear on such a scale.
  The Minister ought to consider the burdens peculiar to the industry. It has to meet, for instance, the enormous cost of compensation for subsidence. It has to pay out about £20 million a year in common law damages for injuries received in the pit, where the incidence of accidents is considerably greater than it is in any other industry. Management and men have to be able to accept the full spirit of the safety regulations. That is much more difficult in a mine than in the ordinary type of factory or in other places of work, so claims for personal injury are greater in coal mining than elsewhere. Large housing estates have to be subsidised so that rents charged may be comparable to those prevailing for similar houses in the area.
  These things are peculiar to the mining industry. Unless it is prepared to meet this burden, the State will not have the viable industry envisaged by the Minister. We shall lose men, and miners cannot be made overnight. We cannot send a man to an accelerated training course and expect him to be turned out as a fully-fledged miner in a short time. When we lose these men they seldom return to the industry.
  A vital force in our economic life is formed by those able to man the pits and produce coal. We should do what we can to enable the industry to move these men to areas where work is available so that the force necessary to keep the industry going can be maintained.
  Mr. Clifford Williams: With my colleagues I have listened to the debate and we have been entertained a great deal. Some of the speeches have been completely out of context. They have ranged over a wide field. I perhaps will do the same. If so, I ask your forgiveness in advance, Mr. Grant-Ferris. We have had Worcestershire sauce, Somerset cider, harmless gas and, from the hon. Lady on the Opposition Front Bench, a sip of champagne.
  I do not pretend to understand all the implications of the arrangements which have been made. I worked in the pit for only 45 years and I have several brothers who worked in the pits for many years. We lived and worked in a period from 1918 onwards, the memory of which will remain with us always. When I hear hon. Members opposite professing friendship for the miners it is not in human nature to accept it. When one has lived in the valleys and seen the suffering and stark tragedy which can never be removed, one thinks of the gas chambers which Hitler had in Germany. I asked your guidance, Mr. Grant-Ferris, lest I should stray off the road.
  Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not know when the Ridley Committee's Report came out.
  Mr. Ridley indicated assent.
  Mr. Williams: There is one scholar in the class. At the time of that Report, 90 per cent. of the energy of the country was produced from coal. Today it is 65 per cent. That has been a violent change and it appears to be accelerating as technology advances. The Ridley Committee, only 15 years ago when the country was desperately short of fuel under a Conservative Government, was set up by a Conservative Government. It advised on
  "possible measures to promote the best use of the country's fuel and power resources … To meet in full the demands of the community for the different fuel and power services … To provide for export fuels …"
  Export fuels mark you, 15 years ago. Today that seems rather strange. The Committee proposed producing 222 million tons of coal in 1955, and said that that figure should be increased to 250 tons a year by 1970. The experts on the opposite side of the Committee have
  1316
  told us how wrong the Coal Board has been in its forecasts, but there was a case of a specialist committee set up by a Conservative Government being hopelessly wrong.
  Changes affect our mining communities and the lives of all those in them. Some places, like the Rhondda, have become economic graveyards. We had that under the coal owners, and I worked under them for a long period. My God, if ever we worked under slave masters and brutality, then I and my colleagues experienced that for 30 years. I shall never criticise the Coal Board or the Government that nationalised coal. Whatever the Board's defects, it has been very good, and those old days must not be repeated.
  Eminent people have stated many times on wider economic matters that the world does not owe us a living. We accept that, but we must also accept that the country owes the miners a living. What they have given over the years cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. During the last war and for a decade after, the demand for coal was insatiable. Every pit capable of production was needed, and we were exhorted to produce the maximum amount possible.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that he feels these things very much, and we are all very interested to hear him. But I am bound to keep to the rules of order. All the Amendments refer to one thing only—pit closures—and we must adhere to that, for otherwise there will be no end to the debate.
  Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Grant-Ferris. I asked you to guide me. I shall have to skip half a dozen pages of my notes. You have knocked me off my stride, though you did not mean to do that. I thought that I was on the mountain then, practising to myself. I do not want to take advantage of the Committee.
  Do not ask me or my colleagues who worked under both systems to deride or belittle the National Coal Board. We know that the country and the Government can never hope to repay what the miners have given the nation.

  1317
  The most shameful thing I have seen in my life was a picture in the London Evening Standard of 21st November when the country was up against it and the Government were compelled to devalue. It portrays the parasitical non-producers on the floor of the Stock Exchange the day after devaluation.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot have that either. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the Amendments, and remember that they bear on pit closures.
  Mr. Williams: I had to bring that in as a contrast to what I was saying. We believe in the Amendments which we have put down and we believe that we have the support of the Committee and the country.
  12.45a.m.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I will not detain the Committee for long but I want to make one or two comments and refer to what the Minister said when he spoke about there being arguments at all times. He said that hon. Members opposite said that the amount borne by the Treasury was too high while we said that it was too low. The problem is that it is too little and too late. Had much more been done in 1965 many of the problems which we face today would probably not be there.
  The real question was not whether the figure was too high or too low. The Minister suggested that the right path was in the middle. But it is too little and rather too late.
  The 1965 Act assumed that the cost of the concentration of the industry—and that included only expenditure to facilitate the redeployment of miners—would be something like £80 million. I am convinced, as I said on Second Reading, that the concentration of the industry since 1965 has been mainly Government policy. If an industry is contracted by the policy of the Government, surely it is right to argue that the Government should accept full responsibility. That is why we lave put down this Amendment. We believe that, having taken decisions as a Government, it is the responsibility of the Government to meet the results of those decisions. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that he should say, not as the Opposition suggest, that the figure
  1318
  is too high, but as we suggest, that it is too low. Because this balances the scales he cannot wriggle out of the middle and say that his figure is right.
  He should face the facts and the facts are that the Government have decided a policy and there is a responsibility on the Government to meet it. The Amendment simply asks the Government to meet the full responsibility of the results of the concentration policy. That is why I support it.
  Mr. Marsh: I do not want to prolong the debate because I know that hon. Members on both sides want to move on. This is a long Bill and there are a number of other points to be made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) has put his finger on the most sensitive point: whether the Exchequer should carry the entire cost of this exercise. This is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate point to put forward, but I think it would be a mistake. It would mean that the Coal Board would be dependent on the Exchequer for the whole of its expenditure under the Bill. While the expression "He who pays the piper calls the tune" is a cliché, there is a tendency to undervalue most clichés. It is important for the Board, in its own interests, to have a smaller proportion to bear, but a proportion which enables it to put its point of view forcefully and argue its share in the exercise.
  I do not think my hon. Friend and I find ourselves in disagreement in principle, although we will probably have more arguments on the issue, but I hope that he will feel, on reflection, that it is important for the Board to have a degree of independence from the central Government.
  The Board's share is much smaller because of the abolition of the first £3·8 million as well as the change from one-half to one-third. The remaining third gives the Board a level of independence which is valuable to it. It enables it to take a close interest because of its financial commitment to those concerned.
  Mr. Ridley: I have great sympathy with the case put by hon. Members opposite. The total sum involved was thought last year by Lord Robens to be £80 million in this operation. In his

  1319
  evidence to the Select Committee he said that the Board would have to find £50 million and that the Government would only find £30 million. The Parliamentary Secretary, a year or so later, says that the figure is now down to £70 million, of which £25 million is for the Board and £45 million for the Government, making a switch of £25 million in favour of the Board.
  This seems to me the best way to help compared with many of the ways available. What is now proposed by hon. Members opposite is that there should be a further switch of this last £25 million from the Board to the Government. This scheme is very important. The Board tells me that, in the first four years of this exercise, 10,500 men have been taken from declining coal fields and also from other industries and put to work in profitable coal fields in the Midlands and elsewhere. This, as far as I can make out, has cost approximately £15 million, an average of £1,500 per miner.
  For the next four years, as outlined in the Clause, the estimated cost is a further £70 million, and the Board, according to my information is hopeful of persuading another 20,000 miners to accept resettlement of this sort, which works out at £3,500 for each miner resettled. I am not sure whether that figure is right. It seems we are not getting particularly good value for money if the cost has gone up from £1,500 to £3,500 per miner resettled.
  I have also checked with the cost of similar schemes on the Continent by the Coal and Steel Community. In the last complete year, 1966–67, I find that 51,000 miners were moved and resettled at a cost of nearly 14 million dollars, which works out at about £100 each. So we have this very wide range between £100 in Europe and £3,500 as forecast for here. There is, of course, a very large benefit in doing this but Lord Robens—
  Mr. Swain: The discrepancy between the two costs is accounted for by the Board including the provision of houses in the new areas where the miners are resettled. This does not happen in America.
  Mr. Ridley: I was not talking about America but about the European Coal
  1320
  and Steel Community. The figure for housing is relatively small. It has only been £2.2 million so far in subsidies by the Board. I do not think that that aspect can account for so large a gap. How much are we spending per head? How much do we plan to spend? It is important to know the cost and what we are getting for our money, although, of course, the scheme is desirable.
  As I was saying, Lord Robens has said that it has a large financial advantage for the Board. In his evidence to the Select Committee he said:
  "I could put the figure in another way which may be of interest, that is the miner transferring from Northumberland to East Midlands earns for the Board £1,000 a year, and he earns a considerable amount of money for himself."
  The Board itself, in its hand-out on the scheme, stated—and this is significant:
  "It costs us over £1,000 to train an underground face worker but only about £500 to move a man. Is our redeployment effort worth while? We think it is, because it enables us not only to fulfil our obligations as a good employer but to make a sizeable contribution to our balance sheet. The marginal contribution of a man at profitable pits in the East Midlands can be as high as £5,000 per man year. There can, therefore, be no more effective use for our marginal labour than to redeploy it; our efforts are bent on doing so as effectively as possible."
  I am sure that that is true. Therefore, in this expenditure there can be very large economic benefits for the Board in carrying it out. One has to ask why it is proposed that the Government should help.
  Another point which seems to me to be important is that the Ministry of Labour pays similar grants to workers in other industries. We know what the grants are—travelling allowances, make up of lost wages, settling in costs, lodging allowance, household removal, continuing liability in the place where a man comes from, household resettlement grants and increased rent allowances.
  The Ministry of Labour has a rudimentary scheme for other workers than miners. The comparison seems extraordinary. The Ministry of Labour last year, on schemes for non-mineworkers—the whole of the remainder of the population apart from mineworkers—spent £366,000 only, and here it is proposed to undertake expenditure rising to perhaps £20 million on mineworkers.

  1321
  There is this enormous discrepancy between the arrangements provided for the population as a whole, £366,000 a year, and the arrangements for the mineworkers.
  Looking back over the events since 20th July last year, when the great drive for redeployment started—and we must admit that it has been a total failure—one sees the reason, because it is clear that to achieve successful industrial redeployment an expenditure of £366,000 a year is totally inadequate and that the example of the Coal Board in having at least tried to tackle the tasks involved is one which could be emulated by the Government as a whole.
  That consideration leads me to believe that this is a national responsibility. For instance, of the 10,500 miners so far redeployed to profitable pits, 2,000 were unemployed or not previously employed by the Board at all. We thus have a transfer of men from other industries into coal mining. Obviously, this is extremely valuable both to the Board and to the economy as a whole.
  It would seem to me that the policy in this direction should be national and should concert transfers from one area or industry to another—indeed, from one firm to another. It is not right to charge employers contributions on the weekly stamp for industrial movement of that sort—unemployment pay, training and the like—and, at the same time, to put the burden on to the employer, even in part, as is being done in this case.
  The best way that we can spend money to help the coal industry is on grants to help it to become efficient and effective. This means redeploying men from pits which are closing to the pits which are short of labour and have a great future in other parts of the country. Therefore, I would have thought that, on all this argument, hon. Gentleman opposite who have put down the Amendment to remove the two-thirds limit on the grants have the better of it, though I must be quite honest and say that I believe that some of the later Clauses of the Bill seeking to spend a lot of money on far less worthy objects is the place where we should I make the economies to find the extra money which would be involved in making this transfer. But I would find it very difficult, if this matter
  1322
  were to be taken to a conclusion, to say other than that it is the right place to spend Government money, and I only wish schemes of this sort were available to workers in every industry, and not reserved to coal miners.
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. Eadie: I want to comment, briefly I hope, on this part of the Bill's provisions. I sought, with some of my hon. Friends, to put down Amendments to those relating to pit closures. I do not want to go over the ground which has been already covered by some of my hon. Friends with, let me say, a great deal of compassion, sincerity and knowledge.
  I take the view—and I think the Minister knows it—that the Government have to share the responsibility for the social consequences of pit closures, because, although I know that it is arguable, it is my submission that it is Government policy which is responsible for the concentration in the industry. Government can influence consumer demand, and if there is a lack of consumer demand for coal there will be pit closures. Some of my hon. Friends have sought to argue that the Government should be responsible for the social consequences in their entirety, and, quite frankly, I think that that is a reasonable proposition.
  When we start to talk about pit closures and the costs and social consequences it is assumed, particularly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the pits in the areas of closures are derelict. This is not entirely true. In many of the areas where we have pit closures and serious social consequences there has been a big capital investment, a capital investment in houses and schools, in clinics and roads. Even when the pits are closed, a necessary economic and social infrastructure is still there in the area, and I would argue, if there is contraction of employment, that the cost of putting in the infrastructure is a rate burden on the people in the area.
  In my submission, the Government have a responsibility for carrying out their obligations in this, because, after all—and I know this is contentious, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even some of my hon. Friends, do not agree with me about it—unproven technology is taking the place of proven technology.

  1323
  Let me take an example. In the area in which I reside—not my constituency—a commercial decision has been taken, I understand, on the closure of the Michael Colliery; but there are reserves of coal there; there is an abundance of coal; it is a very very rich field of coal. Because of the policy of the Government for concentration, the argument is being advanced that the coal will not be needed, and, therefore, we will not work it in that area. Because they have been politically conscious and sensible, the miners of the area have elected Labour-controlled authorities which have ploughed back this vast social capital in houses, schools, roads and clinics. The Government have a responsibility not to carry out this policy of concentration and neglect this social capital, this rate burden, this capital burden, in areas where there are pit closures. The Government cannot abdicate the responsibility of backing up these authorities financially.
  I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to realise that what we are asking is that the Government should take the entire responsibility for the social consequences of pit closures, and our arguments are soundly based. Many of my hon. Friends endorse these arguments and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give them careful consideration.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like to put a short question of fact which arises out of the argument put so eloquently by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). He referred to the Michael Colliery which is representative of many Scottish pits which are closed, or about to be closed. Is the contribution to be made by the Board, and which is now to be one-third instead of one-half, to be borne by the divisions or by the Board as a whole? If it is borne by the divisions, that will clearly have the effect of raising the price of coal in each division affected.
  Mr. Marsh: I apologise for intervening for a third time on this subject, but this is an important issue and it arouses strong feelings among many of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite. I can tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) at once that there is no question but that this provision is met by the
  1324
  Board on a national basis. It is right that it should be.
  The whole argument has been that this is a cost which must fall on the State. We have moved away from the 1965 Act, when the Board was asked to pay the first £3·8 million and a pound per pound thereafter, to a position which is considerably better and in which the Exchequer does not put a block at £3·8 million and where the Exchequer meets two-thirds of the amount. We are down to a very narrow argument about whether the Board should be relieved of the whole lot.
  I ask my hon. Friend to consider very carefully what this would entail. As long as the Board makes even a minimum contribution, it is master in its own house, which would not be the case if the entire financial burden were to be placed on the Treasury, thus making the Board 100 per cent. dependent on the Treasury for this provision. I say that with the greatest respect—which all Ministers always have—to the Treasury. I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friends will see that that would not achieve their objective, in which I support them.
  I do not make a quibbling argument, but it is a fact that leaving out two-thirds and charging the full amount of the Board's expenditure against the Bill's provisions would exhaust these financial provisions faster than would otherwise be the case.
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman should admit in fairness to his hon. Friends that they have proposed to increase the amount provided, so their argument holds water on technical grounds.
  Mr. Marsh: I said that I was not making a debating point. I was saying that, given the drafting peculiarities of Bills and the fact that the Financial Resolution has been passed, the effect of the Amendment would be to charge the full amount of the Board's expenditure against the financial provisions of the Bill. The effect of that would be to exhaust the financial provisions of the Bill faster than would otherwise be the case unless expenditure were less than was previously thought. Therefore, taking these arguments into account, and they are powerful— —
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: What I think my right hon. Friend should realise is that some other provisions in the Bill may be over-generous, like the provision for people who may transfer from one coal field to another. Some coal fields which are contracting are not taking these men in, so there may be financial provision there which counter-balances this.
  Mr. Marsh: This is an understandable reaction, but I hope that it will not spread, because the undermanning of economic pits would be one of the most dangerous things for the industry.
  We have done a great deal of calculation, and in these circumstances, with the assurances I have given, and with the difficulties we face, I hope the Committee will feel able to accept the Bill as it is.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  (PAYMENTS TO REDUNDANT WORKERS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY.)
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 25, leave out from 'time' to end of line 26 and insert 'after 17th July 1967'.
  Mr. Irving, with your permission, I think that we are debating with this Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 15, 25 and 27:
  In page 2, line 25, leave out '17th July 1967' and insert '20th July 1966'.
  In page 2, line 26, leave out '1971' and insert '1972'.
  In Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out 'not later than 27th March 1971'.
  In Clause 6, page 4, line 6, leave out 'between' and insert 'after'.
  In page 4, line 7, leave out 'and 1st April 1971'.
  It is not a question of "17th July 1967" being the commencement for redundancy payments, but of the termination of payments, according to the Bill, of 28th March 1971. There are Amendments among those which I have mentioned which would probably give far greater benefits to the men who become redundant and I hope that my hon. Friends will take part in the debate and will raise points on those Amendments which are far superior to the one I am moving.
  1326
  The termination date of 28th March, 1971 may have some impact at present in the industry, where men can see coal stocks rising and think that after the date I have mentioned there may be no further redundancy payments and may decide to leave the industry because their morale at present is not too high. We should do all we can to ensure that men in the industry at present become confident that there is a future for them in it. It is essential for them that the Government should accept and provide for redundancy payments to continue beyond 28th March, 1971.
  There is also the question of men already declared redundant. I think that the Government should consider what can be done for these men who are still out of work. Many of them will be those who have given their lives to the industry and who are suffering from ill health, but are not so incapable as to have to sign on at employment exchanges. These are men who have suffered serious accident and who still could be employed in some industries, and because they cannot be registered as sick, sign on at the employment exchanges and feel left out in the cold. The Government should give consideration to these men, and I hope that the Bill can be improved to take them into account.
  1.15 a.m.
  On the humane side, the Minister said that if we increase the efficiency of the coalmining industry—and I hope that we shall continue to do so—because of more productivity per man employed there is a great danger of about 100,000 becoming redundant. I would sooner a man become redundant because of increased efficiency than because we are inefficient and fail to sell the coal. No matter how they become redundant, we must look after them better than we have done in the past.
  At this juncture I think that the Minister should give serious thought to whether we are to become efficient and increase our stocks of coal and throw men out of work. There must be a strong argument for getting rid of the stocks of coal and ensuring that the men can continue in work as the mines become more efficient and allow phasing out by way of what is termed "natural wastage" to reduce the number of men employed.

  1327
  If we cannot find employment for these men inside the mining industry, it is essential that new jobs are brought into the mining districts. If the Government's policy is to make certain that more coal is not consumed—but I hope that the Minister will ensure that coal will be consumed in greater quantities—and they brought new factories and plants into the mining areas, they would attract men from the industry, which is becoming more efficient, into the new jobs and so reduce the output of coal. If that is to happen—and I am afraid that it may be so—it is essential that we look after every person who becomes redundant and make certain that the men will not be afraid of becoming redundant after the year 1971.
  It will be appreciated that men in the mining industry today are looking somewhat askance at what is happening about the future of the mining industry. They can see the stocks rising. They can see that they are becoming more efficient and, as they become more efficient, it will be more difficult for the increased coal stocks to be sold. Therefore, their morale will become lower and lower. If that is so, then the date that we have fixed in this Bill for the termination of the redundancy scheme ought to be deleted. I am not saying that it is the Government's intention that, at the 28th March, 1971, this scheme will be obliterated or removed and that there will be no further redundancy payments made—I hope it is not anyhow—but the men will give their own interpretation to the Bill when it becomes an Act and will probably say, "That is it. They are looking after us in this temporary period of four years, but after that there will be no redundancy payments made."
  If that is so, many will leave the industry and seek pastures new, and the morale of the men remaining in the industry will get lower and lower. The Government should do whatever they can to improve their morale. Therefore, although the Amendment proposes to insert 17th July, 1967 I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the men who are redundant now, and will ensure that the termination date of 28th March, 1971 is deleted.
  Mr. George Younger: I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic
  1328
  consideration to the Amendment, at least to its intention, if not to its detail. When I first saw the Clause it struck me as reasonable to have a terminal date for a scheme of this sort, but, having thought about it further, and having listened to what has been said tonight, it seems to me that there is no object or advantage to be gained by having such a terminal date.
  If this date had some significance in the programme that we can see stretching ahead of changes in the industry, I would be prepared to listen to the argument that there was a logical terminal date which made sense in terms of what we expect to happen, but I do not think that, with the best will in the world, anyone is able to say that 28th March, 1971, has any particular relevance to any part of the programme that we can see at the moment.
  It therefore seems that the date is almost bound to be too soon, or too late, or to have no particular meaning when it arrives. It will be arbitrary, not because of any deficiency in those who have chosen it, but because at this stage it is imposible to give any logical reason for it. If we accept this, it seems open to question whether there is any advantage in having a terminal date at all.
  After all, the details of the scheme can be altered or revoked at any time by laying a further Statutory Instrument before the House. When such a Measure is introduced it can be debated, and we can decide whether such alterations are good or bad, or should be revised, or be put into effect, or whatever may be the case. Under the Bill, the Government have power to make such alterations as may from time to time appear necessary. In the light of the uncertainties and difficulties we can see ahead of us, it may be found convenient to alter the provisions of the Bill, to make them more or less generous, or to terminate them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen very sympathetically to this argument. I do not think that the Amendment will spoil the Bill in any way. I think that it will leave the Government with complete flexibility to alter the scheme as and when the circumstances become clear.
  Given that the intention behind the Amendment is accepted, even if the wording of it is not perfect. I think that the

  1329
  Minister should consider it, and then bring it back at a later stage, drafted as he would like to see it. This is one way in which we can remove any possible uncertainty, which the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) said could arise. I do not think it will, but, as we approach 1971, human nature being what it is, people will become uncertain about what they should do to get the advantage of the scheme before the terminal date.
  The Amendment has merit, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  Mr. Robert Woof: I wish to confine my remarks to Amendment No. 27. The earnest purpose of this Amendment is to try to retrieve some lost confidence in the coal industry. Whoever desires to look at the endemic effects of the Clause after 1st April, 1971, will probably see that it gives every hope for all sources of energy except coal. For the coal industry it offers a diagnosis that must bring a haunting sense of some graphical meaning. It is an unmistakeable imprint of the elimination of large sections of the coal industry. What the industry faces after 1st April, 1971, is redundancy on a massive scale, and that is the specific reason for introducing this Amendment.
  I feel that it would be impossible to remain altogether unconscious of the character and dimensions of the vast process of change. Of course we accept that the purpose of the Clause is to give some relief to support the cost of additional coal to be used by the gas and electricity industries.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has already stressed that the object is to try and hold demand for coal by 1970 at around 155 million tons. As we understand the position, the target of 155 million tons prospect for coal was formulated through a sense of perception that arose out of the Selsdon Park conference with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, along with the heads of the nationalised industries. Further to that, the Government accepted the advice of the N.C.B. that the rapid rundown in the period to 1970 would cause unmanageable difficulties for the industry.
  Therefore, to a certain degree, the target of 155 million tons was accepted
  1330
  if practical and necessary. To our way of thinking the thought operating in the Clause rests on the promise that in due course, when the time arrives, that is, after 1st April, 1971, when the brakes will be released against the holding operation, the rundown in the coal industry will be at a catastrophic speed onwards, and redundancy will be overwhelming.
  The bearing of the fact, and its psychological import is of an inescapable dilemma. It has created widespread public controversy. It is, therefore, desirable at this point to get as firm a grasp as possible of what is involved.
  Many of us believe that the proposal to end the support for coal to the gas and electricity industries on 1st April, 1971 does not go far enough to cushion foreseeable redundancy. That is another reason why we have sought to introduce the Amendment.
  We accept that the Clause is not some fanciful imagination but an attempt to hold production in the coal industry around 155 million tons. But it is on that figure that we feel obliged to recognise that the Economist of 22nd July estimated on Coal Board authority that it would mean a displacement of 40,000 men in each of the three coalfields, Scotland, South Wales and the North-East, with the residue coming from other coalfields.
  That is undoubtedly an unprecedented sound of alarm, but when we explore the nature of the withdrawal of imbursement in the Clause we find that it will precipitate a further cut-back in production, with an even greater displacement of men. It seems to us that such a perceptible fact can be summarised in one word—sacrifice.
  1.30 a.m.
  What do we mean by sacrifice? It is far from any euphemism. We must appreciate that such an idea could have a devastating effect on the coal industry and its employees. For years the industry has tried to ward off the expected effects after 1st April, 1971. It should, none the less, be permissible to say that, in the competitive race and to keep men in employment, no end of advice has been given to the Board to improve its efficiency by urging it to transform to competitive conditions, to play its full

  1331
  potential part in the economic life of the country.
  All the reflex action is bound up in the sensitiveness of the Coal Board and the miners in being commended to adapt to technological change. But the motive force of the Clause after 1st April, 1971 deprives them of the benefits of surmounting the many problems and difficulties of the economic stratification of the industry. Nothing is plainer than that. Often they have been discussed so much in facts and figures that at times one would think that the Board and its employees were just another body of statistical gymnastics.
  Indeed, during the last few weeks, the miners have marched past a historic landmark. For the first time, productivity has exceeded 40 cwt. per man shift, but such an undeniable achievement leaves one wondering how far that would succeed as a final base in the competitive struggle. If there is any arraignment in that complex labour activity, it should not be forgotten that the miners have not created industrial trouble for more than a decade. They are led by dedicated and devoted men. Their reputation is a manifestation of collective responsibility in the national interest. They have cooperated with the Board in moving men between coalfields in which, it was understood for so long, there was an assurance of continued employment.
  A short history of that community is that countless men have been shunted from pit to pit as a consequence of closure upon closure. That in itself has created a social crisis of the first order. The vast preponderance of those involved, both men and management, are vastly worried by this swiftening onrush of pit closures. As the Clause encourages industry to purchase more coal up to 1st April, 1971, we consider it helpful.
  To avoid more redundancy than is necessary, the N.U.M., for example, does not disagree with the general aim of exploiting North Sea gas as soon as possible. But with the withdrawal of the support to the gas industry, we believe that that must not involve damage to the coal mining industry, and in any estimate of using North Sea gas, the Government must take into account the economic and social costs of the rapid rundown of the coal industry. Up to the present time it
  1332
  has not been disputed that North Sea gas is a short-lived fuel. It seems logical, therefore, that one must not incur long-term damage for short-term considerations.
  We are quite willing to enlist our support in the Clause to enable the gas industry to use more coal, but it is also our view that natural gas from the North Sea should replace imported fuels and not indigenous supplies of fuel. We believe that in any rational fuel policy it is necessary to balance the gains of the gas industry against the losses of the coal industry of a decline in coal consumption.
  In expressing the right to conceive the costs incurred between 31st July, 1967, and 1st April, 1971, it is a well known fact that those engaged in the coal-mining industry are, throughout their daily lives, in constant struggle with their emotions and trying their level best to suppress them. The imposing effect of the Clause makes those of us from the North-East and other coalfields feel that there is something to be emotional about. We do not accept that we must be trapped by circumstances, because the circumstances that will be brought by implementing the Clause will be the result of decisions in which innocent people will have misfortune to face.
  We therefore cannot conceal our deep concern, which is wrapped up in the Clause. To put it another way, just as hedgehogs are born without spikes, we all know how they prick after they grow up. At least I do, because when I was a boy I tried to grab one. That is how I feel about the Clause. It should bring judgment to bear on the necessity for a much slower rundown of the coal industry, not only for the sake of coal but for the economy as a whole.
  We therefore feel justified in our action in asking to leave out "1st April, 1967". We need to avoid the Clause striking its fangs into the hearts of areas which rely on the coal industry simply because, whatever side we extend our vision, the basic fact remains that jobs in mining and in mining areas are going to be drastically reduced. Despite the new measures recently announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, our previous experience in this direction has been bitterly disappointing.

  1333
  To keep redundancy at the lowest possible level, the deletion of "1st April, 1971" should lead to a more positive way to stimulate morale. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to allow the N.C.B. to put up the best possible bid it can for a coal fired power station in place of the nuclear idea at Seton Carew because coal costs are more likely to be proved accurate. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said that putting Seaton Carew on nuclear would have no effect on the consumption of coal until the station begins to come into operation in 1975.
  Heaps of facts, figures, and information have been presented, but, in view of the possibilities and bearing in mind the recently announced need of the Government to cut back spending in the nationalised industries, some of us think that this will have some bearing on the huge investment in the second nuclear programme. Since devaluation is bound to affect the cost of nuclear power stations because of the increased cost of uranium imports, we would hope that the Coal Board's estimate of a cost of £300 million more for a nuclear station than for a conventional one, will be given serious consideration. That would at least to some extent nullify the real social costs of the damage which could he done to the coal industry.
  That might well be, but the effect of this Clause after 1st April, 1971, will mean that the excess cost of social benefit will be paid to thousands whose work will not be required; and what is an infinitely greater worry is the multiplicity of younger members of families who will be looking with forlorn hope for employment as a consequence of the sacrifice of huge public investment in reconstructed collieries.
  Historians may argue that our troubles began at the Tower of Babel, when languages were multiplied and when men were dispersed; when there was the problem of organising the world on a plane of high ideals of knowledge, of faith, and of human service. But, as this Clause stands, and if the Government recognise only a doctrine of cheap fuel policy as the price to be paid by people who have applied their great courage and endurance, their skill and their will to work only to find that they are condemned to
  1334
  despair and hopelessness, even although all the human problems are alleviated following the closures which will result from the operation of this Clause, then we shall be in trouble of incalculable magnitude.
  That, at least, should convince the Government that priority should be given to the investigation into the fullest utilisation of the Coal Board's reserves in order to prevent redundancies. Obviously, the Government commands the dominant means of explicit decision but, to be quite frank, if a nuclear power station is built at Seaton Carew, it will be an economic man-made disaster for the North-East. The effect will be extended over all the multifarious branches of the industrial population, affecting mining and non-mining communities alike.
  This Clause makes us feel and confess—and we have been through strikes and lock-outs—that this is the first time we have been on our bended knees; but it is not benevolence that we ask. It is the total sum of our duty to appeal for the right to be given the opportunity in industrial progress because such guided zeal can be proclaimed as the triumph of individualism and competition in the coal industry.
  Our concern with the Clause is not an exercise of magnanimity of a gift that we seek for a coal-fired power station; it is solely with the supreme issue of the national cost of closing down groups of mines which otherwise would produce coal for power stations. It is upon such a decision that its successful execution would be a welcome relief from all the anxiety; it would irrevocably advance the happiness, the satisfaction and the prosperity of all concerned. In the circumstances, we would be most extremely grateful for any enheartening information he can give, which will be of great benefit, particularly to the Durham coalfields.
  1.45 a.m.
  Mr. Webster: A very moving speech has just been made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof). He talked of the various dates. I will not go into the merits of Seaton Carew, but I would ask the Minister whether in his calculation of dates he has made any assessment of how it might all harmonise with the European Social Fund as operated by the European Iron and Steel Community.

  1335
  The Government have stated from time to time that they wish to enter the Communities and to harmonise our arrangements. Some time ago, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), I had the privilege of going to the Borinage coalfield, and of going down one of the most inefficient pits. We saw men being laid off, but it was encouraging to see the type of assistance that was being given.
  I will not, at this late hour, elaborate the details except to say that if it was a Community decision, half the cost was paid by the country concerned and half by the Community to provide full pay for four months in the first year of unemployment, provided that the man was taking full retraining under the rehabilitation and retraining scheme. For the next four months, there was a slight reduction in the amount paid, but it was still quite adequate and generally to the satisfaction of the people in the industry concerned with whom we talked. There was a further reduction in the last four months, and it was done more on a part-time basis while the men were trying to get work.
  The problem of mobility was considerable, but I gather, having recently been back to the Community, and inquired, that it has either been successful, and so has had to be extended, or necessary, and has had to be extended. I am not sure whether it is pressure from pressure groups that is causing this, but I should be grateful to know to what extent the Government are trying to harmonise with those in the Community.
  That is why I wondered about the dates, because the Iron and Steel and other Communities within Europe are to be harmonised in 1970 and merged into one Community—and the Social Fund will, one presumes, be merged into one about that time. There is no magic in the date, but I hope that I am in order in asking whether the Minister has in mind any form of harmonisation, and what ideas he has for solving the problem that frequently occurs in this type of retraining, where the receiving union of the industry concerned refuses entry to the retrained men. This is a very difficult and controversial point.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Anybody who comes from a mining family or from a mining
  1336
  area will agree with the principle in this Clause, but most of us would disagree with the dates contained therein. I must make it abundantly clear that I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 13, because I have seen very many pit closures in my constituency. Many men, during the last few years, have lost their jobs.
  In case the Minister is not aware of the pits which have been closed, I propose to read the list to give some idea of the magnitude of the problem concerning men who will not come within the ambit of this Clause if the Amendment is not accepted. In the Kilsyth area, in 1956, Gartshore 3 and 12 was partly run down and 200 jobs were lost. In 1959, the same pit was completely run down with 400 jobs lost. In 1960, Dumbreck was run down and in 1963 Dumbreck pits 1 and 2 closed and 650 jobs were lost. In 1964, Twechar pit was closed and 260 jobs lost. Dullatur pit closed in 1964 and 260 jobs were lost. In 1965, Auchengeich closed and 40 jobs were lost. In 1966, the Dumbreck byproducts works completely closed and 100 jobs were lost. In 1967, the Gartshore 9/11 closed and 700 jobs were lost.
  In Bannockburn, Cowie, Plean and Balmore, all built as mining villages with new houses, schools, clinics and churches, they have no industry whatever with the exception of the closed pits. These pits are as follows: Manor Powis, which closed last year and 746 jobs were lost; Plean, with 443 jobs lost, closed in 1963; Pirnhall, with 147; Polmaise 1 and 2, with 731; Polmaise 3 and 4, with 698. At the moment, there are 600 men working at Polmaise 3 and 4. This pit won the British award for the highest productivity of any pit in the country only three or four weeks ago, with an output of 48 cwt. per man shift, but it will be closed because it is producing coal for Longannot electricity power station and that power station is taking coal from another area.
  Mr. Eadie: I think that it would be unfair to say that Polmaise will be closed in the near future. We have information that it will be a little time before it closes. My hon. Friend's constituents will read his speech and I should not like them to think that it is to close in the near future.
  Mr. Baxter: Polmaise 3 and 4 will close in the near future. My hon. Friend says "a little time", but I think that it will not be long before it closes. It has been run down by a considerable number. I am greatly concerned about this. As I said in an interjection in the Minister's speech, I should like implementation of the promises made by the Labour Party before we took power, promises by the Minister and others, that industry will be provided in these areas before the pits are run down. In Kilsyth and the villages I have mentioned, no industry has been set up by this or the previous Government. The first priority should be to channel industry to those two areas of West Stirlingshire where we have had so many closures.
  A considerable number of the miners affected will never work again. Some are aged between 56 and 60. If their pit closes within the period stipulated in the Clause they will get compensation, while those in the pits that have been closed in recent years get nothing. That is a grave anomaly. What is good for the goose is good for the gander—and it is good for the men who will lose their jobs in the immediate future that they should receive reasonable compensation from the Government, because of the terrible nature of the work they have done over the years.
  I should like to see my right hon. Friend using greater imagination to try to devise a scheme whereby men who have served the industry for 40 or 45 years and have left it through no fault of their own, because of the closure of the pits, would receive reasonable pensions, so that they would not feel that they were no longer wanted by an ungrateful nation. They have a right to expect a reasonable income in the years ahead of them.
  Most of them suffer from troubles and disease caused by work at the coal face, such as pneumoconiosis and injuries to their limbs. Few do not carry the scars of working for the benefit of the nation over the years. It would be a calamity, and a shame on the Committee, if we agreed to the Clause without my hon. Friend's Amendment. We must be seen to be fair to all sections of the community, and tonight we are dealing with
  1338
  the coal miners, people who have unstintingly given of their life and effort to produce the fundamental wealth of the nation. We are still considerably reaping the rewards of their labour.
  It has been said that the Amendment might be too expensive, but we have subsidised other aspects of our national life, and the money would return into circulation. We have spoken of subsidising industries, and there is no harm in that. We subsidise agriculture so that it can produce more foodstuffs at home to save the expenditure of foreign currency, which would put our balance of payments further into jeopardy. There is no reason why certain aspects of the coal industry should not also be subsidised. The nation would benefit.
  Not to accept the Amendment would be a tragedy. Parliament cannot vote money to a man one day and refuse it to the man who was out of work the previous day. This could not be fair by any measuring tape. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this Clause. If he does not do so I will be forced to vote against the Government tonight, although not against the principle of the Clause, because it stipulates dates which could prohibit many excellent men in my constituency from receiving their due reward. The due reward for their labours is that they may be allowed to live their lives in some degree of peace and quietness and with a reasonable income to make these days pleasant for them.
  2.0 a.m.
  If we were to do this it would justify our return to this House as members of the Labour Party, of the working class party, because most of us come from fundamentally working-class households and from mining households. My father was a miner and my wife's father was a miner. I recognise the difficulties which these men have faced and the great benefits which they have given to the community in the past and the present, and will give in the future. It would be remiss to forget them at this time in our development and if we alter the Clause to make the money available to all the men in the mining community who have been knocked out of work it would be one thing which would redound to our credit throughout the land.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I do not usually intervene in these debates, but as one who worked in the mining industry before coming to this House, and who represents a mining constituency, I want to elucidate some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) and to refer to Amendment No. 27, which deals with the special assistance to ensure that more coal is burnt in the electricity and gas industries.
  I want to refer to one extremely efficient and successful pit. Many of us fear that its future may be put in jeopardy unless the provisions are extended. I appreciate the work that the Government have done. It is far more than was ever contemplated in the days I worked in the industry under private enterprise. There has been a fantastic change. We have had some exciting developments in pits in my constituency. At the Westoe pit, where £8 million was invested as recently as 1957, there has been an enormous increase in output per manshift. It has risen from 18 cwt. to 57 cwt. and is going still higher month by month with the expectation that soon it will be over three tons.
  We have new investment coming in now for further developments and new ideas in lighting and the rest. This means work there, including work for many older miners living in the area as well as those living more or less on the premises. It would be encouraging for them to have some assurance of an active future supplying coal for power stations in the neighbourhood. There are many whose hopes for the future are a further coal fired station at Seaton Carew.
  It is, therefore, a matter of deep concern to all of them that all the efforts they put in to develop this technically advanced mine, with all the prospects of future advance, might be vitiated if they cannot see a reasonable opportunity of use of their product in the years ahead—and that means beyond 1971.
  I am using this as an illustration that not only are we concerned about the position of run down pits which clearly are uneconomic and with the problem of how we can fade them, but also with the problem of how to make effective use of the most modern developments in the industry which it would be a tragedy to waste and destroy.
  1340
  On that basis, I hope my right hon. Friend will find it possible to look again at this Amendment and give some assurance about the future use of the coal being mined from some of those most modern and efficient pits.
  Mr. McGuire: I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright). I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) for a coal-fired power station in the Durham coalfield. He made that plea because he feels that the proposed run down in the industry would have particularly disastrous consequences for his area.
  We are, in effect, debating whether to give the electricity industry money to take what it considers uneconomic coal, which has to be subsidised. The electricity industry, not because it wished to do so, but as a matter of Government policy, experimented with nuclear power, which has meant displacing from the power stations 6 or 8 million tons of coal which is now in stock. Now we are asked in the Bill to subsidise the electricity industry for what it considers to be expensive coal at a time when much of the coal in stock is the result of a wrong policy pursued by the C.E.G.B. in producing very expensive electricity.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Seaton Carew. It is regarded in the coalfields generally, particularly in Durham, as being the Waterloo for the Coal Board in those areas, and Durham in particular, because they can see no hope otherwise—and the date 1971 will have no relevance if we get a further demoralisation of the industry through not building a coal-fired power station in the Durham area.
  I support my hon. Friend's argument that it would be right and proper for the Board to put in the best possible tender for the supply of coal in that area, because if the estimates of the Board and the forecasts about the supply of coal and its cost were outrageously wrong, as the previous forecast of nuclear energy has been, it would not be a very big job to convert from coal either to gas or oil. That could be done at little cost and the nation would benefit from whatever fuel policy was adopted then. If a nuclear power station is built, it

  1341
  will remain there whether we like it or not, even if the forecasts for it are outrageously wrong.
  The lesson that we have learned about nuclear power, if we have learned anything at all, is that whatever forecasts have been made about coal, however optimistic they have been, have been bang on target compared with the forecasts about cheap electricity from nuclear power. As long ago as 1955, it was forecast that electricity would be produced from nuclear power at a cost per unit sent out 0·6d. That forecast has been nowhere near achievement, and I believe that there is no more chance of present forecasts being right in the future than that early forecast has been. I therefore endorse my hon. Friend's plea that this question should be seriously considered, if only to uplift the morale of the men in the coalfields, particularly the Durham coalfield.
  The Bill envisages the giving of aid to men in the mining industry aged 55 and over for a period of three years until, in some cases, the age of 65 intervenes. I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to examine the figures and to consider giving aid to men aged 50 and over for what, I hope, will be a temporary period. As I said in my previous speech, the mining community and the miners do not want dole, even if it is 90 per cent. of their pay.
  What is wanted in the mining areas—and in industrial areas which are run down, particularly the older areas—is planned growth. We do not want the dolls' eyes and plastic flower factories; we do not want cottage industries. The fact must be faced that if we are to get big industry, there will not be an industry at the end of every street. Men will have to travel sometimes, perhaps a few miles, but it is far better to travel to a big unit to get work.
  I instance the great success of the Tory-directed car industry at Halewood which has been a huge success and has attracted all kinds of ancillary industry. That is the kind of industry we should be thinking about when talking of replanning the derelict industrial areas. We want something which is properly planned.
  1342
  In the meantime, however, I hope that we can consider the question of giving the 90 per cent. benefit, including unemployment benefit, only to men aged 55 and over. It has been argued often enough that men over 55 have the greatest difficulty in finding employment, but there will be a lot of resentment from men of 50, 51 and 52 who say, "I have no hope of getting a job. Statistics support me in this. Yet I must wait another few years." It is no good our telling them that this is merely a temporary operation and that we are getting the new industries to give them a proper job to restore their dignity. That will take time.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has been saddled with a job which is not properly his. It is a job which should have been planned a lot better. I appreciate what he has done. It is a new and revolutionary start. We have closed pits and other works before by indirect Government action through squeezes and freezes and we have never given the men anything. I recognise that this is a start and that it is a start in the right direction. Nevertheless, I believe that if we are really talking about planning, and mean what we say, this is really a bit of a sop, in a way, and I do not think people on these benches will take kindly to that. Notwithstanding we give 75 per cent. compensation to people at 55, that is not the end of the problem.
  2.15 a.m.
  We believe that it should be tackled far more forthrightly, tackled as an integrated Government plan. It is not much use taking this kind of action, and having the Minister of Transport planning her motorways and new roads, the Minister of Housing planning our new houses, the Secretary of State for Education planning our universities and colleges of technology, all in isolation from one another. They should all be integrated.
  I make this plea to my right hon. Friend, to look again at the question of the age band of 55 to 65 and to start a little lower down the scale. I know that wherever we start somebody will argue about an anomaly being created; that if we set the lower limit at 50 people will advance the argument that men over 45 have the same difficulties. I recognise that, but I think my right hon. Friend

  1343
  recognises that, in my modest way, I like to be reasonable. I think that it is generally accepted that it is the over fifties who have the greatest difficulties in finding new jobs. Even if they are 100 per cent. fit they have great difficulty in finding new jobs, and I am pretty sure that reductions in manpower will take place in areas where job opportunity is already very poor.
  How will my right hon. Friend view the plea to have a look at the starting date, and examine Amendment No. 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)? Probably many miners became redundant as a result of the Government's measures of July, 1966. I ask my right hon. Friend to back date this provision by 12 months, from July, 1967 to July, 1966. I hope he will have taken these modest pleas to heart and will seriously consider whether he can reduce the starting age and put the date back 12 months. With these modest requests, I wait for his favourable answer.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: I rise to deal exclusively with the redundancy payments scheme. I wish to support some of my hon. Friends who wish to change the commencing date and the terminal date.
  I know a great deal about redundancy. I do not wish to appear to be vying with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) when I say that in my area, where I live and work, we have also suffered disastrously from the policy of pit closures. In nine years we have lost 17 pits. In the County of Fife as a whole, where we had 10 years ago over 26,000 miners, we now find ourselves with a little fewer than 6,000. That should indicate that we in Fife do know what redundancy means. I myself, four years ago, was a redundant miner, and had I stayed in that pit I was sent to after being redundant I should have found myself redundant again, but, fortunately for me, I was sent here. Somebody decided I should come here, and I just came down and avoided another redundancy.
  Seriously, the people who most deserve our sympathy are the men of 60 years of age. When my pit closed four years ago, no man of more than 60 was able
  1344
  to find a job. Fortunately, that has now changed in Fife and when there are redundancies, men over 60 are given the opportunity of finding a job. But I still see those who were made redundant four years ago and who belong to this age group, men now 63 or 64, wandering about the village, lost, a pitiful sight, fit, able and intelligent men who have been idle for three or four years.
  It is bad that these men should have had to live for three or four years on unemployment benefit and the £1 a week from the mineworkers' pensions scheme. Fortunately for the men who have retired since then, we now have the Redundancy Payments Act in addition to the Coal Board's redundancy scheme, but I am most concerned about men of 60 and less being idle.
  I do not favour the proposed commencement date, with which the Minister should dispense altogether. All men now redundant, no matter when they became redundant, should be included in the scheme, and those who see redundancy approaching in 1971 or 1972 should also be guaranteed the benefits of this scheme.
  Another category of men for whom I have great sympathy are the disabled, men in the age range of about 55 to 58 who before becoming redundant did light work in the pits and who would have been able to carry on until they were 65. They have now been thrown on to the scrap heap with no hope of getting another job outside mining. These disabled men should also be brought within the scheme.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to give these cases very serious consideration.
  Mr. Ogden: The Committee may have noticed a hardening in the tone of the speeches from this side. The Minister, who is a sensitive man, and his Parliamentary Secretary, have taken note of that. They have paid considerable attention to the debate as it has progressed. However, in spite of the meetings which my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have had with other Ministries and Departments, I am beginning to be a little concerned about the lack of support on the Government Front Bench.
  Perhaps the usual channels could say a word to our hon. and right hon. Friends

  1345
  in other Departments such as the D.E.A., the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, because there are still 10 hours and 35 minutes before we count out the Committee tomorrow, and we may need all that time. There is a message there if anyone on the Front Bench, apart from my right hon. Friend the Minister, wants to take note of it.
  While we appreciate that the Minister understands the arguments which have been put to him, it is time that he began to show some sign of accepting, or undertaking seriously to consider, one or other of the groups of Amendments available to him on this subject. In the current jargon, we have left him with many options open and he has only to consider accepting or considering accepting one of them. He could refer to my Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. I did not suggest these as an independent initiative. These options were laid out by the miners group as alternatives available to the Minister's consideration.
  Amendment 50 gives the date of 17th July, 1967. It has never been clearly explained to me why 17th July, 1967, was chosen, unless it is closely linked with the fact that on 18th July we had a debate on coal.
  That seems very strange, to say that the operative date for benefits should be linked entirely and closely with the date on which we had a debate in the House. That does not seem the best possible reason, and that is why I have put forward in my Amendment a date one year, less three days, earlier, a date which is much more appropriate. This is the date on which we began the freeze and the squeeze, a measure which I supported and still support. Responsibility for those measures rests with the Government, and from that date, anybody made redundant in mining or in other industry has found it much more difficult to get a new job.
  This was a price which had to be paid for future prosperity, and the Government have a responsibility for the difficulties experienced by redundant miners in finding a job. That is why I suggested that the operative date should be taken back almost 12 months to the day the day the Prime Minister made his statement to Parliament, and for which I must take my own responsibility.
  1346
  The point in Amendment No. 51 is that we should extend the period the other way, putting the date forward from 1971 to 1972. This gives a little more time. The basis of some of the arguments has been that there is lack of information and fallible forecasting. Nobody knows what is to happen, so why should we, in these circumstances, put down definite dates? I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he will agree to Amendment No. 13, in which we avoid a terminal date altogether, but if he cannot accept that I suggest that he might say that he will consider a later date.
  I refer, in the presence of a new arrival, to the fact that some support should be forthcoming from other departments, from Ministers who should have been here earlier tonight. They still have time to come and show their support for these Amendments, and others which will follow.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not apologise for making a few remarks in support of my hon. Friend's Amendments at this time in the morning, when so many of our people are on the night shift. The House of Commons should not begrudge the time which is devoted to putting the case of the miners likely to be made redundant as a result of changes in the mining industry.
  I am not, as is my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Mr. Swain), an old miner, but I have been associated with the mining industry for a long time. I was born in the Rhondda Valley and my father was a miner who, luckily, found a job in an alternative industry. He became a minister. It will be very difficult for redundant miners today to become ministers. My background is that of having been born in the Rhondda and of having spent the first 30 years of my life in the valleys of South Wales, so I understand the problems which have been explained by my hon. Friends.
  I live in a mining constituency. I have lived all along in mining communities—except for the three years when I was in gaol—so I understand the background of the industry. All my friends in the little town of Cumnock are all miners and I have been associated with them for all the time that I have been

  1347
  in Parliament. I am quite sure that I am expressing their point of view when I ask the Minister to give the most generous concession that he can in response to the pleas which have been made to him by my mining friends.
  2.30 a.m.
  My constituency is very much like the constituency of my hon. Friend for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who made such an eloquent appeal, and it is also very similar to the constituencies of my hon. Friend for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). But South Ayrshire will not suffer in the same way as West Stirlingshire, which has had so many pits close down and which has largely seen the disappearance of the mining industry. The problems of the mining industry in South Ayrshire are the problems of the smaller pits being closed down and the miners going from the smaller pits into the two larger pits of Killochan and Barony. These two modern pits have had a great deal of capital expenditure and they are likley to continue for the next 20 years.
  As a result of the revolutionary changes in the mining industry, and in industry generally, we are likely to see the closing down of a considerable number of very small pits. South Ayrshire has the same problem about alternative industry, but we are lucky in this respect, because we have had a very great deal of attention devoted to this part of Scotland. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has visited us, and to the work of the local council which has established the beginnings of a small industrial estate. We have a new industry. There is to be a rather large carpet factory. The problem will be how to bring into the carpet factory to make carpets the people who have been digging in the coalmine.
  One problem will be whether we shall get sufficient industry in time to see to it that this redundancy problem will be solved in such a way that we will have nothing like the mass unemployment that I knew in South Wales 30 years ago and which I do not think is likely to come again.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
  1348
  Gentleman, but we must bear in mind that these Amendments refer to payments to redundant workers in the coal industry. I think that we should keep as closely as we can to the terms of the Amendments.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry if I wandered a little, Mr. Grant-Ferris, but these are the thoughts that inevitably come to our minds and this is an opportunity to express the background of these particular Amendments.
  I ask for the most generous treatment for the people concerned. I know that we will get such treatment from this Government. We would never get it from any other. Great attention has been devoted to this problem, but there is the problem of the disabled men, the men who are on the borderline, and the men who are not particularly suited to producing, for example, carpets.
  I hope that in this transitional period we will see generosity associated with humanity to enable men to overcome the difficulties with which they will be faced, through no fault of their own. I hope that they will receive justice, so that there will be no lingering feelings of fear and doubt in their minds. I hope that they will be able to get through this transition period without the tragedy which they have seen in years gone by.
  I reinforce the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). One pit in my constituency which is likely to be closed figured in a notable disaster some years ago. I would have thought that the men working in the Knockshinnoch colliery would have been pleased to hear that this pit was to be closed. I remember the time when it was flooded. For two days and nights we waited on the surface of the colliery for the men to be brought up, and by a miracle they did come up. I would have thought that the miners there would have been pleased to see this pit closed, but they regret that it is not to continue. This is because they fear unemployment, and its consequences. It is these consequences which we are trying to alleviate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory reply to our pleas.
  Mr. T. W. Urwin: Mr. Grant-Ferris, a few moments ago you reminded my hon. Friend the

  1349
  Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this debate was concerned with payments to redundant miners. I am mindful of the importance of such payments, but I draw attention to the fact that Amendment No. 27 refers to payments to the C.E.G.B. and others because of the extra coal burning which is envisaged in the Bill, and, indeed, in the White Paper.
  I want to preface my remarks by drawing attention to the fact, if it is necessary to do so, that on a matter which evokes such emotional feeling as this subject does amongst people who have spent their lives either working in the industry, or representing those who work in it, it is not unnatural to hear the highly emotive speeches which have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The impact of social economics is something with which we are closely conversant, coming as we do from these areas of heavy industrial intensification. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government who have responded magnificently by trying to provide new job opportunities for redundant miners.
  Regardless of the efforts which have been made, and bearing in mind just how great they have been, it is wholly impossible for new job opportunities to be provided to keep pace with the existing requirements. We in the northern region, part of which I am proud to represent, are fully conversant with the difficulties, and know only too well the additional burden which has been thrown on the Department of Economic Affairs and the Board of Trade in trying to provide alternative jobs in the face of this terrific rundown.
  Even despite the advantages that were introduced by the last statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14th November of five years rent-free factories and favourable interest rates on building costs, it just is not possible to take account of the cutback, the new job requirements incumbent upon them in face of the fuel policy operated at present by the Government.
  As I said that I would deal with Amendment No. 27, and as it does specify certain provisions to the Central Electricity Generating Board and others, my
  1350
  attention, quite naturally, is fixed on the provision of electricity by nuclear power, or alternatively, by coal as the energising fuel. My hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and Ince (Mr. McGuire) have drawn attention to the raging controversy which has taken place over a considerable period now in relation to this matter. There has been and continues to be a good deal of anxious speculation amongst the mining community in the Northern, Region, and in the immediate area of Seaton Carew, about the fuel which will be used for this power station.
  I think it reasonable to suggest that if the Minister should decide in the near future that this station should be fuelled by coal, nothing would provide a greater incentive to those of our people who depend on coal for their livelihood. It has been described by the National Union of Mineworkers in the Durham area as an act of sheer lunacy to suggest that this power station, sited as it is on the perimeter of a highly productive coalfield, should possibly be powered by nuclear energy.
  Here we have a situation where there is a belt of collieries, all of them highly productive and highly modernized, which could literally pour in coal to a power station, more especially if the siting had been only a few miles nearer to Seaton Carew, by a conveyor belt system far more cheaply than nuclear power could hope to compete with.
  The forecast of the Coal Board, even on the site selected, of 3d. a therm compares more than favourably with the computations which have been called into account by many of my hon. Friends about the cost of nuclear power. The effect of the cutback in mining, and, indeed, the real danger of further difficulties devolving upon the mining industry in this immediate area—
  The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am finding difficulty in seeing how the hon. Member is referring his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with dates.
  Mr. Urwin: Amendment No. 27 does deal, as I have already stated at the beginning of my speech, with nuclear power and the provision for the Central Electricity Generating Board and others of extra money—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. Amendment No. 27 says "leave out' and 1st April 1971.' ".
  Mr. Urwin: I accept your correction, Mr. Irving. I would point out that if this Amendment is not accepted, bearing in mind that it takes, according to the Minister's words in the White Paper, five years from the beginning of a power station to completion and beginning to work through the economy, the term "1st April 1971" in this respect is relevant. It would be extremely damaging to the industry in the part of the country about which I am making my remarks if the period of Exchequer support ended on that date.
  If the provision is not extended beyond 1971, the impact will be felt not only among the mining industry, but among the ancillary industries in this part of the country which are directly involved, such as transport and the docks.
  2.45 a.m.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: In view of your predecessor's Ruling, Mr. Irving, I think that the remarks which I had intended to make on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" are better suited to the Amendments, which deal with the dates 17th July, 1967, and 28th March, 1971. Those already declared redundant will naturally ask why they are not included in the scheme, and, after 28th March, 1971 there may be others who would wish to come in.
  That is the effect on certain people who are already redundant and will not get the benefit, but it is equally difficult to ascertain to what extent miners will be better off than people in similar industries in the area. Why single out miners for redundancy terms better than those in other industries? There is general suffering.
  I do not want to belittle the hardship of those in the mines, but this will demand money. As subsection (2) says:
  "Any sums required by the Minister for making payments under"—
  such a scheme—
  "shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  This extra money must be paid by the taxpayer. I do not dispute the genuine need, but it is easy, when debating mining and miners, to disregard the hardship of
  1352
  others. In other industries the economic situation which has affected this industry, plus rationalisation and other pressures, is creating redundancy in industrial areas with mines. An explanation would be valuable.
  Subsection (1,a) uses the phrase:
  "are employed at a coal mine or at any place of a prescribed class used for providing services or facilities …"
  How far will this term be extended to other miners not down the pit? It would be helpful if the Minister could elaborate on what classes would be included or excluded. I have mentioned people in brickworks and other industries. What is the limiting factor and what other Coal Board activities will come under this Clause? While subsection (1,a) refers to
  … at any place of a prescribed class …"
  subsection (5) says:
  "In this section 'prescribed' means prescribed by a scheme thereunder."
  A word of explanation about this would be of value and if it is given, I will have no comments to make on the Clause as a whole.
  Mr. Ridley: We have had a wide-ranging debate on what I thought would be a rather narrow Amendment about the date on which the scheme for pensions for the 55-year-old and older miners should end. The discussion has covered nuclear power, Seaton Carew—a dispute into which I will not enter tonight—and the closure of pits in Scotland and elsewhere. It has also included a fascinating autobiographical survey by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), dealing with redundancy among ministers, but I understand that he was referring to ministers of the church. For a moment I was hopeful that the Treasury Bench was about to be looking for new employment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) had a good idea when he suggested that we should write into the Bill that the date could be altered by Order. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) also made an important point when he said that if there is a deadline, even though it be an administrative one, when the scheme will end, this will have a severe effect on the morale of miners and, perhaps, on the manpower situation in the mines, for as we approach 1971 people

  1353
  will feel that unless they get out by that time they will not benefit from the Clause.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will say that he will make a new scheme under the Clause and bring all the benefits to an end in 1971 so that he may recreate them after that date. However, in view of the case which has been made tonight, he may care to reconsider the matter and amend the provision to give power co increase by Order the moneys provided under the Bill when the time comes and we reach 1971. These arguments do not apply to the coalburn under Clause 6 or the pit closure provisions in Clause 5, because there is no question there of the individual being affected.
  I do not support the case made by several hon. Gentlemen opposite that the scheme should be backdated to 20th July last year, that ill fated date which hon. Gentlemen opposite carry engraved on their memories—that cataclysmic date when the Labour economic myth came to an abrupt end. Why we should go back to that date I do not know. It seems undesirable that we should go back to 17th July this year, because this is, in effect, giving legislative authority to something which presumably has been done before the Bill was introduced. It amounts to giving retrospective approval to something already done.
  If this is so, why has no scheme been published? What about the details of the scheme which we will have under the Clause? If there is not such a scheme, how have these pensions been paid back to 17th July? If none has been paid, what is the point of stating in the Bill that pensions can be paid as from 17th July? This is a conundrum and it would seem undesirable to carry the authority back still further into the past.
  I should very much like to know a little more about those whom this scheme will benefit. We are authorising presumably an expenditure of £45 million, but we have been told nothing about the exact nature of the scheme which will need this by no means inconsiderable sum. We know from a pamphlet which has appeared that it will apply for three years and that miners will have 90 per cent. of their past earnings, provided they qualified under certain conditions. They will receive redundancy pay as well—
  1354
  or will that be deducted from the benefits given under this scheme?
  Some miners will receive £1,100 or £1,200 in a lump sum, and they are very welcome to it; they are entitled to it, but what effect will this have on their entitlements under this scheme? Then there are supplementary benefits of up to 80 per cent. of past earnings and is it intended to make up wages under this scheme or pay pensions which include unemployment pay? Or will this be on top of unemployment pay?
  These are all very relevant features one can think of and about which we should know more. If it is not on top of unemployment pay, then the benefit may be worth only a few shillings. We do not know. It could be 15s. Of course, one can imagine that it could be £15, or, in the worst cases, 15d. We do not know how this will fit into other Ministry of Labour benefits. I support any measure for retraining for new skills, and for assistance if necessary in moving to a new area so that people can bridge gaps in their careers, but, before we leave this Clause, we are entitled to have a great deal more information about what is intended. After all, it is not usual for the Minister of Power to bring in at three o'clock in the morning a scheme which introduces an entirely new class of pension.
  The questions one could think about are legion. Many hon. Members have spoken of what will happen when a miner retires, or is classed as redundant in the sense that his pit has closed. That may happen when he is 55 years of age, and at 58 if he has still not got a job, he goes down bump to a lower scale. Presumably, a man of 54½ will get nothing under the scheme—or will he? One could think of brothers with one getting full wages for three years, while the other, only a year younger, will get nothing out of this scheme. Will the 55-year-old miner automatically come under this scheme? These are the sort of questions which are important.
  Let us suppose that a pit closed, say, last June. Would the men from there never be eligible under the scheme? We see demarcations of such importance that they cannot be passed over. I admit that this is a rotten time to consider them, but I am surprised that, with all the euphoria in connection with the Bill, hon.

  1355
  Members opposite have not made more of these points.
  3.0 a.m.
  Mr. Swain: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Amendment No. 14 he will see that all the points he has raised will be elucidated in the debate on it.
  Mr. Ridley: With respect, if the next Amendment to be taken were accepted it would give the Minister power to pay a pension to a 16-year old boy, because it would remove any age qualification at all. I look forward very much to hearing the hon. Gentleman's defence of that proposition, with which I cannot agree. I will then with pleasure listen to a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about the difficulties of the scheme.
  But I must say, Mr. Irving, that we have had such a wide-ranging debate that it rather surprises me that, in their many speeches, hon. Gentlemen opposite have not touched on any of the anomalies or difficulties arising from the date, from other existing pension provisions and from Ministry of Labour arrangements—
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I intervene to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is dealing with the subject matter of Amendment No. 14.
  Mr. Ridley: I have been arguing, amongst other things, that the date should not be changed, and this is one of the matters that is relevant to this Amendment. If I have gone slightly wider than I should in discussing the Amendment, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen have gone a lot wider still in talking about the cost of Seaton Carew. We even had the autobiography of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire, which we all found most interesting.
  A consideration raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) was the effect on other trades of allowing three years benefit to miners on early retirement. The man who works in the same pit—perhaps an electrician or a haulage contractor—or someone working alongside who mines phosphate, iron ore or some other commodity, in conditions of equal discomfort, unhappiness, danger and risk—if that man's pit closes he gets nothing at all.
  1356
  These are serious questions, and they must be considered by the Committee. I hope that before passing airily on the Minister will deal with the whole range of questions raised by this or the next Amendment. I am sure that we shall have a spirited debate on the next Amendment, and I look forward to it, but I now would like to hear the Minister's explanation of the rather blanket powers he seeks to take.
  Mr. Marsh: One of the attractive things about a debate on coal in the early hours of the morning is that it does galvanise the Opposition into action. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has asked a number of questions arising from this proposal, and I shall deal with them. But it is reassuring, because I announced the scheme in the House on 18th July, and it takes the hon. Gentleman until December before he starts asking questions. I am pleased to know that he takes an interest—
  Mr. Ridley: Can the Minister say when there has been a Parliamentary opportunity to debate the scheme before now?
  Mr. Marsh: I must say that I would lose faith in the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends if I thought that they could not in six months find an opportunity of asking a Question on a subject which, as he himself says, is of extreme importance.
  I will deal with the various points the hon. Gentleman has raised, because this is a very important Clause. It contains a unique scheme, which is a particularly important development. I make no secret that it is not a solution to the problem. I readily concede that fact.
  What miners need, whatever their age, is work; they do not want benefits of any particular type. The first priority must always be in these circumstances the provision of alternative employment. I take the point made by some of my hon. Friends that it has to be real employment. The Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Transport and I are engaged in exercises designed to tackle this problem, which is the root problem. While that is happening, whatever is done there is a problem in this particular industry. It

  1357
  is a very specialised problem and it is very peculiar to this industry.
  As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, this has been a fairly wide-ranging debate. I do not think that I can get involved in the Seaton Carew argument, except to say that no decision has been made. It is a very complex subject. If one does not build a nuclear-fired station, but a coal-fired station it does not necessarily follow that this is the best site for such a station, or for that matter, for a nuclear station.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) was even more ingenious. He managed to Debate Amendment No. 27 to Clause 6, which seemed to be the best achievement so far.
  The Deputy Chairman: In fairness to the hon. Member, I should point out that Amendment No. 27 has been selected for discussion with this Amendment.
  Mr. Marsh: I agree, Mr. Irving. The question of coal burning was a matter which he had strongly in mind.
  It has been asked: why should we single out miners? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that this will lead to demands from other sections of industry as it produces anomalies and unfairness. There may be neighbours living next to each other and both declared redundant in similar circumstances, yet one will get benefit and the other will not. This idea arose, I freely admit, as a result of a discussion with a group of miners' officials in a "pub" on the eve of a miners' rally. We talked about methods that could be produced to meet this social problem.
  We can always argue about the age and say that there is no difference, in effect, if a man is 54, 55 or 56, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. A man of that sort of age entered a very different mining industry from that which exists today. He spent a large part of his early life in conditions which are probably not matched in any other industry today and which were worse than conditions in the generality of industry. The fact has to be faced that many of the people of that age in the mining industry, while not registered disabled persons within the meaning of the law, are persons whose health is at the best indifferent compared
  1358
  with the generality of workers. Many of them have been employed in the pits by the Coal Board which has done a superb job, but as the number of pits has declined so has the number of jobs available for this type of people. This is a problem which can be argued on the basis of coal miners. No doubt it will be used elsewhere, but we shall have to meet it on its merits when it is raised. There is a special problem here and it has to be faced.
  Much of the discussion has centred around two points—the end date of March, 1971, and whether we should have the starting age of 55. I was also asked how the date of 17th July, 1967, was decided. The Amendment would be completely open-ended for the future. One of the problems is that the Clause is part of an over-all Bill for a transitional period up to 1971. The Bill then expires as a whole, together with all the financial provisions. Before then, the House will have to debate what happens next. It may be that other provisions, perhaps bigger or smaller, will be needed. But it would be a bit incongruous if the House were committed to maintaining just one Section when the rest ceased to have effect in March, 1971. That does not mean that there will be a debate in March, 1971; there will have to be a debate before then.
  The intention behind the Bill is to give the industry a breathing space so that it can compete. We shall have to see how far it has done that and then we may want to extend or change the provisions. Therefore, it is probably better that the whole Bill should go together, because it is part of a closely interlocked exercise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) fairly said that if he "plonked"—if that is a Parliamentary expression—for the age of 50 somebody could legitimately show exactly the same anomaly concerning the man who is 49. It was on 18th July that I announced the idea to the House. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury expresses legitimate doubts about retrospective legislation, and I think that Parliament would not tolerate our being retrospective to a time before the first announcement of the idea. I announced then that I proposed to introduce a

  1359
  scheme of this sort for the redundant miner aged 55 or more. I afterwards had discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers, and on 25th July I wrote to the union confirming that I would ask Parliament that the scheme affecting redundant mineworkers aged 55 or more should apply to men affected by closures which took place on or after 18th July. It duly noted this correspondence.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury raised a number of questions about the scheme. It is highly complex and unique. It has not been tried before, and I am not sure what will emerge at the end. It means taking into account all the varying benefits and trying to ensure that a person does not suffer an abrupt drop in his standard of living. The benefits taken into account vary of themselves. The hon. Gentleman raised the classic example of unemployment benefit and the supplement. Under the scheme a man will get unemployment pay together with the wage-related supplement. In the second six months he will lose the supplement, which is then made up by the scheme. At the end of 12 months he will have lost both the unemployment benefit and the supplement, and, therefore, both are made up.
  The hon. Lady is a lawyer, though I do not hold that against her. She will recognise what sort of complexities are involved in legislation of this type. Therefore, the regulations will come before the House. I make no secret of the fact that they are not yet complete. Before they are brought to the House discussions will take place with the N.U.M., which is intimately involved in this.
  3.15 a.m.
  Mr. W. Baxter: What troubles me to some extent is the position of the man working in a pit which closed in June, 1967, a few days before 17th July. He may have devoted the whole of his life to the mining industry since he was a boy of 13 or 14 and is now about 60. Another man may be employed in a pit when it closes on 17th July. He may have come into the industry to do a particular job and have served only five years. He gets a redundancy payment and pension rights but the old miner gets nothing at all. What is a valid
  1360
  reason for that? Why not introduce a scheme applicable to all miners who have become redundant through no fault of their own based on years of service as all good pension schemes should be?
  Mr. Marsh: The anomaly which my hon. Friend mentions is one which exists with any date. There will be people made redundant before the date who will be outside the scheme. The difficulty is making the money available retrospectively. This is not only a Parliamentary problem. To make an Act retrospective several years before it was ever mentioned when public money is involved would produce an extraordinary situation and it would be almost impossible to trace all the men to whom the benefits were to be paid.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asked how the money was being paid out at the moment. It is not. No moneys are being paid out and no scheme is being operated. It would be wrong to do so until Parliament has approved the scheme. We have managed to keep in contact with every miner declared redundant since 18th July. We know where they are and if Parliament agrees to the Clause we can pay the money.
  The hon. Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Webster) raised the question of harmonisation of the benefits with the European Coal and Steel Community Social Fund. This is an extremely interesting fund. If Britain enters the European Economic Community this is something that we will have to look at and we will have to be prepared to make changes. The date of 1971 is significant here because this is about the date when such a thing might have to be considered.
  What the men want is work and not social benefits. This leads one to consider retraining and, having been retrained, the acceptance of the redundant miner as a colleague by other unions and other people. There can be no justification for any tradesman refusing to work with a man, who can prove that he can do the job, because he comes into an industry at 40 instead of 16. We have had, on the whole, enormous support from some of the craft unions, who also have real problems. It means a revolution in thought for them. This part of

  1361
  the exercise is going very well, although there are patches here and there which it is better to deal with quietly rather than publishing a pronunciamento.
  Having raised difficulties over some of the Amendments—and I understand the problems as my hon. Friends see them—I give my hon. Friends the assurance that the regulations will come before this House for approval and that they will first be discussed with the unions. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) will see fit not to press the matter.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, and the guarantee he has given to consult the unions about the regulations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Harold Finch: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, leave out lines 32 to 34.
  Some of the points I shall raise have already been referred to by my right hon. Friend. The words we propose to omit prescribe that the payments shall be made to persons who have become redundant
  "… after attaining the age of fifty-five and before attaining the age of sixty-five …"
  I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend will consult the unions before introducing the regulations but the fact remains that, whatever negotiations take place, unless we amend this Clause, they will be restricted to the age limits now prescribed in it.
  I am particularly interested here in the disabled men. If the scheme proceeds as at present proposed, it means that very many of the disabled will not be included and to me, a disabled man, whether he be 35 or 55, if he is declared redundant and is incapacitated, he should be paid under this scheme generally.
  There are many thousands of men in the industry suffering from pneumoconiosis. Many of them are in the South Wales coalfield. I ask my right hon. Friend to give the Clause further discussion and not restrict it to the age group 55 to 65. Some years ago, men suffering from this disease were prohibited from working in the industry. The medical boards at the time said that
  1362
  once a man had pneumoconiosis he must get out of the industry. Later, the Medical Research Council, after examining hundreds of men in South Wales, concluded that those in the early stages of the disease could go back to work in the industry under approved conditions.
  Thousands of these men are working in coalfields. Many of them, when closures take place and they are declared redundant, are doing the same work for the same wages as before they contracted pneumoconiosis and will not be entitled to hardship allowance.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would explain how what he is saying comes within the terms of the Amendment.
  Mr. Finch: I am asking that certain words be omitted from the Clause so that my right hon. Friend and the Coal Board and the unions can discuss the introduction of a wider basis for these redundancy payments. Under the Clause, the age must be between 55 and 65. There are many disabled men in mining who are under 55—even aged 40—who are seriously incapacitated. If they are declared redundant, their position will be prejudiced because they will be back at work and will not be able to get hardship allowance. They will be at a serious disadvantage.
  That is why my right hon. Friend should have the opportunity, before restricting the age to 55–65, to discuss the matter with the Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Ministry of Social Security, so that he can bring forward a Clause which is not restricted to the ages of 55–65.
  It is most difficult for the disabled to find work elsewhere. Whatever factories are introduced into an area, it will not be easy for the partially disabled who are fit only for light employment to find work. That is all the more reason why a man under the age of 55 who is seriously incapacitated, if he is declared redundant under the pit closure scheme, should get the payment that the scheme is intended to apply to those between the ages of 55 and 65.
  One of the most serious social consequences of pit closures is the position of the disabled man. Whether he is 45 or 55, he will be in serious difficulty.

  1363
  That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to make the Clause less restrictive so that, in consultation with other Government Departments, he can introduce a wider scheme.
  In any event, the scheme will be a difficult one to apply. I know that there must be demarcation limits. A man aged 54 years and 11 months will not qualify, but a man aged 55 will. This will create disagreement among men. It would be far better in such a scheme to say that as long as a man is unemployed and cannot be provided with work, he should get some form of payment. The onus should be placed on the Ministry. If a man is declared redundant and the Ministry cannot find him a job, he should be able to be paid under whatever scheme my right hon. Friend has in mind.
  Whatever discussions take place with the National Union of Mineworkers, a man aged 45 who is seriously disabled will not get assistance under the scheme unless the age is amended. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment and thereby be enabled to introduce regulations of wider scope.
  3.30 a.m.
  Mr. Swain: This is a very interesting stage of the debate tonight. We are just getting to the concessions which we are asking from the Minister for the men in the industry.
  There are some interesting and important figures about the age grouping in our industry. In a Written Answer from the Minister to myself today I am informed, and I will inform the Committee, that there are 101,671 men in the industry at this moment over the age of 55 years. When we consider the total number of men, 385,000, we realise that this percentage of men over 55 is very high indeed. At long last our forecasts made in 1959 and since have come true, and we have a mainly unbalanced age grouping within the industry.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said—I do not know whether he said it irreverently or seriously—that if we accepted the Amendment it would mean that a boy of 16 could get a pension. I think that that was going rather to the extreme. What we are bothered about is the fact that at whatever age a man is declared
  1364
  redundant the stigma of unemployment on the man is the same whether he gets nine-tenths or one tenth. There inevitably arises a period, after redundancy, perhaps of immediate retraining or perhaps unemployment prior to retraining. As I see it, however ambitious our training centres building programme is, there will be a residue of men in the process of retraining who cannot be absorbed. If a man is declared redundant at 55 or 50, then he will have to go on the dole and the social security benefits arising from unemployment.
  Under the Bill, a man at 55 will get nine-tenths of his wages, but the Committee must appreciate that this industry of ours is a unique one, and at 55 a man's physical condition is deteriorating considerably. At 55 his life at the coal face is almost over, and in nine cases out of ten is over. As a consequence of an agreed scheme of years ago, a manager can give him 10 days' notice and he is reduced, and will be reduced, to one of the four grades of day-wage earners. Therefore, all that that man can qualify for is nine-tenths of Grade 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the underground or surface rates.
  If we look at nine-tenths of the benefits under this scheme of wage—related benefits we find that it is very little more—I quote the hon. Member opposite: it is only a few bob more—in most cases than he would get if he were on the dole and receiving full benefit from social security and perhaps some supplementation. So what the Minister is giving away in this respect is very little indeed. I do not think that he is giving enough. He cannot increase the physical capacity of the men in the industry; he cannot decrease their natural age: so the only way he can help the industry over this very serious transitional period is by extending the age downwards from 55, down to another age. Men of 35 should be included if they are made redundant.
  I do not say that it is wrong or bad practice, but it is my experience that colliery managers do everything possible to encourage older men to leave face work so that younger men can be brought in to do it. The industry will have a younger labour force of men between 20 and 45 who will be mobile and mostly prepared to move from one district to another, which is what the older age groups cannot do.

  1365
  To cover what will undoubtedly be a short transitional period—for it will be easier for men under 55 to get a job—men who become unemployed should receive related benefits, nine-tenths of their earnings, until such time as they find other jobs. The Minister would be doing a good turn not only to the industry but to the country if he accepted this proposal, for he would keep these men free of the dole. I am convinced that Ministry of Labour officials and everyone else concerned would be rightly instructed to be on his toes to find these men jobs as soon as possible.
  The Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment which would improve his Bill considerably. If he had accepted our earlier Amendments, this would have been the best Coal Bill ever to come out of the House of Commons. We are proud of that, but we are disappointed that so far the Minister has not seen fit to accept any Amendment. I hope that he will accept this. If he does, he will receive the support of every hon. Member.
  Mr. G. Elfed Davies: The Minister would be well advised to accept the Amendment which seeks to do what the Minister said earlier it was his intention to do—to consult the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board on the problems of presenting a scheme. The scheme is obviously complex, but I would rather that my right hon. Friend's hands were not tied to a figure at this juncture before his consultations with the two sides of the industry. It would be in everyone's interests to have a scheme acceptable to both sides of industry and that will not be possible if this provision remains in the Bill.
  This is one Amendment which my right hon. Friend could accept without any difficulty. He could then have the consultations of which he has spoken and then bring forward his regulations.
  Mr. McGuire: I support the eloquent argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). The Minister should accept the Amendment, first, for humane reasons and, secondly, because history supports any scheme of this kind. The humane ground is that it is now generally recognised that the Government should give benefits to those
  1366
  whose health has been broken on the wheel of industry, as is certainly true of men in mining. There are in the industry men who were disabled long before the age of 55 when they could have obtained some benefit from these proposals.
  We have men who were disabled long before that time. It is generally recognised that the mining industry, which is now to be run down, has given its disabled men a measure of shelter and protection. Although I accept what the Minister has said earlier about the Government propping up the industry, change is being enforced. The mining industry has looked after these men carefully and to a far higher degree than other industries has kept men in sheltered occupations in lamp shops, powder magazines and that type of job, limited though these possibilities are.
  The Coal Board employs well above the 4 per cent of these men, which is generally accepted as the average, and there is more than that percentage on the books of practically every colliery. Every branch secretary, as I did when I was a branch secretary, has a list of men longing for the day when they could get one of these sheltered jobs, so this problem will be exaggerated when we close pits.
  Special consideration must be given to men who are not as free to sell their labour on the market as men under 55, who are physically fit. Historically, the main commitment is to men who have lost their health in war or peace. A man who is suffering from industrial injury or disease receives more benefits than a man who is merely ill, although it may be that the latter has greater disability than the man with industrial injury.
  The National Union of Mineworkers is not Luddite. If the Minister accepts this Amendment, we shall be able to point out to the union that the age limit for fit men is 55, but we are now considering reasons to reduce that age and when the Minister meets the union he will be able to discuss with them at what earlier age the benefit should start, or whether there should be any age barrier at all, for men to receive payment on health grounds. If a man is not able to travel, his sheltered occupation may be gone. I think that the Committee will

  1367
  support the Minister if he agrees to this Amendment.
  3.45 a.m.
  Mr. Eadie: I support the Amendment. I know that at 4 o'clock in the morning it is probably difficult to put forward logical argument, but I am sure that the Minister must be impressed by the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends.
  I say right away that when one examines this Clause of the Bill one can only say that the actual concept is right. Indeed, it depicts a certain amount of humanity and understanding for a problem. Yet, having said that, it is a very depressing philosophy. The interpretation of this part of the Bill is depressing to the extent that it creates the impression that we are writing off men at 55 years of age and over. Therefore, although we can pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the compassion that he has shown to a very difficult problem, nevertheless I think that he would agree with me that if something was done to amend this Clause along the lines proposed by my hon. Friends, it would introduce more compassion into the Bill and at least do away with this very depressing idea that we are writing off men at 55 years of age.
  When we talk like this we are, to some extent, probably doing my right hon. Friend a gross injustice. I do not think that this was the idea in his mind when the Clause was being drafted, but he will see, from the arguments which have been advanced, that there are gross weaknesses in this Clause.
  Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out that certain anomalous circumstances can arise in relation to the calculation of 90 per cent. of a man's earnings. Surely we have to consider here the issue of retrospection, because we know that when pits are about to close, sometimes internally within the pits there is general readjustment or regrading of manpower. Therefore, we have to consider this question of retrospection.
  In conclusion, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take the sound advice offered to him. Surely there is here a margin for negotiation—I do not say consultation—between him and the National Union of Mineworkers. The reason why I do not say "consultation" is because I am
  1368
  always reminded of the fact, when I was an active trade unionist, that when we started to use the word "consultation" we were always told that did not mean management, so I am often afraid to use that word.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the propositions put forward by my hon. Friends and enter into the spirit of negotiation with the National Union of Mineworkers. I believe that if the terms of the Amendment were implemented it would give new heart and, to some extent, new morale to the industry and would remove this depressing philosophy that we are trying to write off men at 55 years of age and over. I hope that he will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has spoken eloquently about the problems and anomalies raised by this particular scheme. Obviously, in a scheme of this sort anomalies are bound to arise. We will find an argument for having a finite date on this, but we shall find a lot more anomalies, whatever scheme is introduced.
  I understand and appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, but I do not subscribe to the idea that we are writing off men at 55 years of age. We are recognising that some of them do take a long time to get another job; that some do not get another job, and that some of them, given a year or even two years, do eventually get another job, although it is difficult for them. The purpose of the exercise is to assist them during the time when they are waiting for other jobs. I recognise that in any scheme of this sort there must be a number of anomalies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has spoken on the subject of industrial injuries benefits and their relationship to this scheme. This is a subject of which he has made a close study. I do not say that there is not a problem here, but I do not think that a coal Bill is the way to deal with it. One might want to look at the problem of industrial injuries benefits. I am not saying whether there is a case or not, but I do not think it is specifically a subject to be dealt with under a coal Bill.
  Now that I have heard my hon. Friend's speech I understand why the Amendment has been put forward, but

  1369
  I was surprised when I saw it. I ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment, because if it were accepted it would emasculate the whole scheme. It would, as my hon. Friend says, remove the commitment, but it would remove virtually the whole scheme, because it would merely leave the reference,
  "become redundant within the meaning of the scheme."
  The problem here—and it is a very real one—is that at the moment there are about 2,500 redundant miners waiting for benefits under this scheme. If we were to accept the Amendment, which has been put forward for reasons which I understand, we would throw the whole thing back into the melting pot. For reasons which the House knows, the Bill has to go through by Christmas to provide benefits—
  Mr. Finch: My right hon. Friend says that if the Amendment is accepted it means putting off the whole scheme. We are not trying to put off the scheme. We could bring in the scheme, and then consult all concerned and bring in this proposal when we bring in the regulations.
  Mr. Marsh: I am not disagreeing with my hon. Friend on this, but if we accept the Amendment we shall produce a situation in which, at the end of the day, the whole thing will be wide open, and we will be back to square one, with no scheme at all. The delay involved would be such as to cause serious difficulties for a large number of people who are waiting for benefits under the scheme as it is.
  I am not making a debating point about the age of 55. I announced this in July of this year. I have had correspondence with the N.U.M. about it. I have met the Executive Committee, and the Economic Committee of the union. Having started work on the scheme in July, and having discussed it on the basis set out in the Bill since then, to stop it in December and to go back to square one would, I think, not be in the interests of a large number of people who stand to benefit from it as it stands.
  Mr. Finch: Will my right hon. Friend agree to give special consideration to disabled men who are declared redundant?
  Mr. Marsh: I was about to refer to the fact that my hon. Friend had raised the question of disabled men who were made redundant. From what I have heard, I would not have thought that this was a particular problem, and one to be dealt with in a coal Bill. I am not saying that there is no problem here, but it is not a coal Bill problem. I shall read with interest what my hon. Friend said, to see how far the problem exists, and what we can do to try to meet it. But to throw the whole scheme wide open at this stage, so that all the Bill says is that there will be a scheme, would be to place us all at a very real disadvantage, particularly in view of the time which has passed. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will feel able not to press the matter.
  Mr. Mendelson: I accept what my right hon. Friend said about his discussions with the N.U.M., and the need not to be left in the position that he has to start all over again, but does he agree that because of the accelerated proposed closure of pits, the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred, that of disabled people under 55, will be aggravated, and it will, therefore, be necessary for him to take special action to help them? If he agrees with that, it will help.
  Mr. Marsh: I am not word shaving. I said that my hon. Friend had raised a specific problem. What I will undertake to do is to look at what has been said on this—without any commitment because I cannot make a commitment—and see how far there is a case for assistance, and, if a case is made out, how best one deals with it. Certainly, I am open to continue to discuss anything outside the basis of the Bill with any of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Finch: In view of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend—
  The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Ridley.
  Mr. Swain: Before my right hon. Friend sits down—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I had already called Mr. Ridley.
  Mr. Ridley: The Minister, when replying to the earlier debate, answered the question why this scheme should apply to miners alone with the very true and telling answer that these are the only

  1371
  people who have the semi-disablement which makes it extremely difficult for them to find other work from the age of 55 upwards, or perhaps even younger.
  But if this is so, I think that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) makes a strong case, because he is arguing that it is not really the fact that they are 55 years or older which gives them the specially difficult circumstances, but the fact that they suffer from a semi-disablement which makes it almost impossible for them to find other forms of employment.
  As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) said, there are a very large number of them and the problem is particularly pressing in the coal industry. There are 101,000 over 55, and this is clearly a major coal industry problem with which I think we all have the greatest sympathy. The difficulty here is that the Minister appears to be trying to solve the problem by means of age whereas the real solution may well be through development of the industrial injuries scheme.
  We are, I think, giving away a very big principle if we are going to say that people over 55 in industries which are damaging to health and risky are eligible for special pensions. We have to ask ourselves what other people will come up with similar cases. The potteries, the rubber industries and others will produce strong arguments which it will be difficult to resist on these grounds, whereas if we based our scheme on industrial injuries then quite clearly industrial injuries can be made to apply for everybody. It might be wiser to look again at this and make sure that this would not be a better way of doing it rather than by a particular age.
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman will agree, of course, that if we were to do it this way then clearly we could not do it under this Bill. We would find ourselves, if his arguments were accepted, amending some part of the industrial injuries legislation, but it certainly could not be done in this Bill.
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, but this is what the Committee stage is for. It is to make sure that we get these answers right. The Minister, in his last intervention, seemed to suggest that there is some force in
  1372
  what I am saying and what his hon. Friend said, and it is only by debating and arguing these things that we find where the truth lies.
  I do not claim to know a lot about industrial injuries benefit and disablement provisions, but this may be a point which requires further consideration. If this is not the right Bill in which to do it, then I think that a Bill with such unanimously supported objectives would be one the Government would find little difficulty in getting through if that was the better way of doing it.
  To clinch my argument, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), in the Second Reading debate, said this:
  "It is not human to say to a man aged 55, 'We will give you a big percentage of your take-home pay for three years and, at the end of that time, you will get a £1 a week miner's pension.' That does not add to the dignity of these men".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November. 1967; Vol. 755, c. 365.]
  4.0 a.m.
  Indeed it does not. If we pay a pension only for three years at 58, 59 or 60, they will come off support and go back to the £1 a week miners' pension for five, six or, in the extreme case, seven years before they receive the retirement pension. If they do not find jobs, it will be a very lean six or seven years, especially after those three years on a relatively good wage, when their opportunities might have been greater because they were younger. This makes one wonder whether this is the right solution. If they are disabled, that would tend to get worse as they move towards retirement.
  For all these reasons, I have some doubts about the wisdom of the scheme and cannot support the Amendment because it leaves far too wide an opening. The Minister would be well advised to think again. I assure him that there will be no difficulty from this side if special legislation were thought preferable to this course.
  Mr. Swain: I apologise for speaking again. My right hon. Friend said that he had discussed the scheme with my friends the National Union of Mineworkers, but did not tell us its observations. I have a copy of them which says:
  "Our general view on the redundancy scheme would be that it should apply to everybody

  1373
  made redundant as the result, directly or indirectly, of pit closures. It should also apply to such people until such time as they obtain new employment or retire and receive retirement pension from the State.
  At the very least, the scheme should be applicable to all those made redundant over age 50 and all those disabled men who are made redundant, whatever their age. This is a second best proposal because it involves the drawing of an arbitrary dividing line between those who should qualify for benefits and others who may need them but will not qualify."
  It goes on to say that some details of the Minister's proposed scheme need clarification and I suggest that we have not had that yet.
  It then continues:

  "(a) the scheme must apply to staff grades;

  (b) how is the income of a redundant person to be calculated? Can it be made clear that it will include payments in lieu of all customary benefits forfeited by redundancy (e.g. concessionary coal)?

  (c) can it also be made clear that payment under the scheme will not be reduced because a man is receiving disablement benefits, Special Hardship Allowance or any other payment made to him by reason of injury, sickness, disability etc.?

  (d) the miners have been in a very disadvantageous position with regard to the Redundancy Payments Act simply because of the multiple-unit nature of the industry. Men made redundant at one pit have been refused a payment under the Act if they have been offered jobs at other pits which have been deemed to be (but, in our opinion, were not) suitable alternative employment. Can we have an assurance that this kind of thing will not happen under the new scheme (further details of how the Redundancy Payments Act has operated adversely as far as miners are concerned are available if required)?

  (e) The scheme should not end in March, 1971. It should be a permanent scheme."

  They are the observations of my union and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on them.
  Mr. Marsh: I listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain). I made it clear earlier that we had discussed why we had decided that the scheme should end in 1971, because of the general context of the Bill. The points which he raised are the very ones which I said earlier would he contained in regulations which will be discussed with the union before being brought before the House.
  1374
  As for the age at which the benefits will apply—and I do not want to get involved in an argument with the union—the scheme has been known in this form since 18th July. I have spoken with the Executive and with the Economic Committee of the N.U.M. and, to the best of my knowledge, I have not, until now, received any communication to the effect that the scheme was in dispute on this basis.
  Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend keeps referring to "the scheme". On 18th July he did not propose a scheme, but put forward a series of proposals.
  Mr. Marsh: I do not want to mince words. On 18th July, and ever since, I have talked in terms of a scheme which would make up a substantial proportion of average earnings of miners of 55 and above. Subsequent to that announcement, I was specifically asked by the N.U.M. about the date of operation of the scheme, in so far as it was in detail. As a result, I wrote:
  "Further to our telephone conversation of Friday, I can now confirm, as you requested, that the scheme affecting redundant mine workers aged 55 or more, which I mentioned in my speech in the debate on 18th July, should apply to those men affected by closures which took place on or after 18th July. As you know, the details have yet to be worked out."
  I am not picking an argument with anyone, but only hoping to make the position clear. We are faced with a situation in which 2,500 men are already redundant, and have been for months, and to whom these benefits will apply. This is why I am prepared to discuss anything at any time, but I want this minimum scheme to go forward because people are waiting for the money. If we were to throw the whole thing back into the melting pot now, I do not believe that anyone would be pleased with the result.
  Mr. Mendelson: I intervene now because we are discussing a point of great significance, particularly in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) said about the observations on disablement of the principal unions concerned. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was not correct when he pointed to the danger that might arise in all sorts of other industries.

  1375
  It is within the knowledge of hon. Members of the Committee and, indeed, of the country as a whole, that the coal-mining industry is one where industrial disease and disablement have a much higher incidence. In foundries and one or two other places there is a high incidence, but none can compare with mining and although there have been many attempts to widen legislation on this point, there is a new element present tonight: and that is the accelerated closure of pits.
  It is that which has led to the intervention of my hon. Friend. The Minister would be well advised to give consideration to it and not be influenced by any remarks to the effect that he would be giving away an important principle. This will involve a large number of men who will need to be looked after and the Minister would be doing the right thing if he accepted what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has impressed upon him.
  Mr. Finch: If my right hon. Friend will undertake to reconsider this matter of disablement, I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. Since the principle of the Clause has been adequately discussed within the terms of Standing Order No. 47, I propose to put the Question forthwith.
  Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. May I point out that Amendment No. 12, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends raises an important point of principle, Mr. Irving?
  The Deputy Chairman: That has not been selected in any case and cannot, therefore, be discussed.
  Mr. Ogden: Not on the Question, That the Clause stand Part of the Bill?
  The Deputy Chairman: No.
  Mr. Ridley: The point of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which is a separate point, cannot be raised on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. But could not the hon. Member be allowed to raise his point, Mr.
  1376
  Irving? We may not agree with it, but we should like to hear what it is.
  The Deputy Chairman: It has been decided that that Amendment shall not be called.
  Mr. Ogden rose—
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot have a discussion on a Ruling from the Chair under Standing Order No. 47.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.

  (REIMBURSEMENT OF LOSSES INCURRED BY THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD IN POST- PONING PIT CLOSURES.)
  4.15 a.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 36, leave out '£5,000,000' and insert '£3,000,000'.
  I understand that we are also discussing Amendment No. 20, in line 36, leave out £5,000,000 and insert £7,000,000; and Amendment No. 21, leave out from £5,000,000 to end of line 37.
  This Amendment has attracted considerable interest and four of my hon. Friends have supported it although I am, unfortunately, the only one of our number left in the Committee. It is also unfortunate that we are discussing matters of such importance at this hour. My four hon. Friends were very anxious to talk about this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—but I think that it is a remarkable demonstration of their confidence in me that they have asked me to deal with it in their stead.
  One of the reasons for the late discussion of this Amendment is that the Government insist on going on with business after other business taken under Standing Order No. 9. Such a practice might even discourage hon. Members from going ahead with requests for debates under that Standing Order, and that, I think, would be unfortunate.
  If I could have an agreement in principle on this Amendment, I would be prepared to withdraw it. First, is the idea of providing a sum of not more than

  1377
  £5 million or not exceeding £8 million to keep open uneconomic pits for a brief period? If so, I suggest for two main reasons that to use the money in this way is rather foolish. In the first place, to keep open pits when there is no demand for the coal produced from them will just add to existing stocks, which are and have been increasing. While to do this might help us over a temporary unemployment problem, to have stocks more substantial that we have at present would make it even more difficult for future Ministers and future members of the Coal Board to justify a situation in which production was even approaching demand. That would be merely to hand over today's problem to the men who will follow on in the future. It is unfair to the industry in the future.
  Second, is this the best way to serve the coal mining industry and the miners? The very substantial sum involved could more properly be used for investment in alternative industries that could provide real and secure employment in the long term—real job opportunities. That would be a more effective way of spending the money.
  But some hon. Members on this side feel that perhaps this Clause is simply, in writing and in this Bill, the pay-off for a rather squalid deal which appears to have been negotiated at a recent Labour Party conference at a very crucial moment—particularly in relation to the votes of the National Union of Mineworkers—that 16 pits would be kept open for an additional six months. If this Clause really does represent the pay-off for that rather squalid political bribe, it should not be in the Bill at all.
  I must say that I have been rather impressed by the statesmanlike way in which the Minister of Power and the Parliamentary Secretary have been facing the problems of the power industry. They have had to make harsh and real decisions which affect people in their ordinary lives, and to that extent this kind of blatant Prime Ministerial interference will not help them. In the circumstances, the Minister may be glad to consider the Amendment and, indeed, to accept it.
  Mr. Ogden: In the doubts put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) there was some imputation of corruption. His
  1378
  Amendment would reduce the sum from £5 million to £3 million, but our Amendment No. 20, which has not been selected, would do just the opposite: instead of reducing the sum, we would increase it from £5 million to £7 million. We suggest this because every other forecast of production targets and colliery closures has been over optimistic. We suggest that at a time when the closure programme has been accelerated it would do no harm at all to have an insurance over and above the figures already in the Bill.
  These are the reasons why my hon. Friends and I support Amendment No. 20. There is a further reason which I should like to have expanded under Clause 3 to give an indication why the amount should be increased from 5 million to £7 million. When we talk of miners we think of strong men with broad shoulders, like my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), or even of small wiry men like my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Clifford Williams). We tend to forget that men and women in the ancillary services will he affected by closures.
  Colliery managers, colliers, surface workers and coal face workers would produce little coal if they did not have the full support of men and women in the ancillary services and the machinery of the Coal Board. When closing pits we should not forget that we shall lose the support of area boards and administrative offices. This is why the sum should be increased from £5 million to £7 million. We should think of those who pay the wages, provide training services, order pit props and conveyers—the tools of the trade—those who do the planning, provide baths, canteens, supervise workshops and repair plant and take care of the thousand and one things that have to be done to make this coal industry the largest and most efficient in Europe.
  The productivity of the white collar workers is as high, if not higher than, that of any private enterprise. The N.C.B. is a complicated organisation. It was created to control 1,000 collieries and ancillary services on vesting date. Now it has the task, 20 years later, of reorganising the administrative control of 300 or 400 collieries in 17 or 18 areas

  1379
  with a hot line link to the London headquarters and the amputation of divisional headquarters. This is link control with a vengeance, a drastic project which may place a tremendous strain upon the headquarters structure. There is a danger that services and controls close to the collieries will be deployed directly under the control of the London headquarters.
  I understand that the N.C.B. estimates that the new organisation, linked with redundancies caused by colliery closures over the next few years will effect a reduction of 13,000 non-industrial staff by 1970. At present, non-industrial staff numbers 47,000, of whom 27,000 are in junior grades. There is the closest co-operation between industrial and non-industrial grades in the supervisory staff through the whole structure of the Board's organisation.
  This is not the first time the staff has met such a challenge of reorganisation. It has had a mechanisation and computerisation programme of infinite complexity and detail. People in the white collar grades have served the industry well and they deserve the extra support which could be provided by putting the extra £2 million in the Bill.
  May I say a personal word of thanks to you, Mr. Irving, for allowing me to put in this form what I could not put in another form earlier in the debate.
  Mr. Concannon: I support the Amendment, and should like to go a little further, for the philosophy behind it is very good. I should like to see more phasing of pit closures until suitable alternative employment is available, with an open-ended commitment by the Government instead of the £5 million.
  I represent a receiving area for some of the older employment areas and older mining regions. My area is more modern than those of many hon. Members who have spoken before, and we are still short of miners—though I do not expect to fill the vacancies with mine workers of 55 and over. The older areas must be protected by the phasing of necessary colliery closures with the provision of suitable alternative employment, and, therefore, an open-ended commitment would be better.
  Mr. Emery: I rise at this late hour just to put one or two questions to the Minister and to draw a number of conclusions. We are in rather a strange position, because in discussing both Amendments at the same time we are considering exactly opposite ends of the same point; one Amendment wishes to reduce and the other to increase the amount to be paid over a four-year period for keeping 16 pits open.
  I understand the worry of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) only too well when he said that in every forecast production figures have been overestimated. That is true, and I do not think that any hon. Member taking part in the debate would believe that the figures we have had are budgets, forecasts or estimates. They are really guesstimates, more often than not of the worst sort.
  What really perturbs me about the Clause and the Amendment is that their purpose is to keep open inefficient pits which have already been scheduled for closure by the management. Paragraph 114 of the White Paper on Fuel Policy states:
  "In the light of an assessment of employment prospects this winter, the Government have requested the Board to defer until after the end of 1967 all closures except those necessitated by the exhaustion of reserves."
  Later in the paragraph it is stated for the first time that the Government consider that the management of the Coal Board should consult on pit closures to a very much greater extent than before with the chairmen of the regional economic planning councils. Whether this was policy or not, it is certainly the first time that I have seen this limitation put on the management authority of the chairman of the Board. Is it the Minister's intention that there should be this extra limitation, and if this is the case then I think that Lord Robens has the right to be told about it. I am certain that he does not think that it is.
  The policy on closures is set out quite clearly in paragraph 117 of the White Paper. It would appear quite definitely that the two contentions are that this should not be done in haste and that it should not have any wrong or unplanned effect on the pit closure programme. The Government surely cannot claim that either of these two contentions are reasons for keeping pits open and are applicable to the Clause we are considering.

  1381
  It is for that reason that I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was right in suggesting that the amount of money should be cut down. It was the policy of the Board that the pits should have been closed earlier. They were co-ordinated into the plans and management decisions. One has to look a little further for the exact reason for finding this Clause in a coal borrowing powers Bill.
  4.30 a.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is the hon. Member suggesting, regardless of whether jobs are available for these men, the pits should be closed, throwing the men out of work?
  Mr. Emery: I am not suggesting it. This is what the Coal Board has said. I am not taking on this responsibility. This was something planned with and agreed by the Minister. This is the strange thing about it.
  I come to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart made. This was a political deal. I do not wish to use the word "bribe", but I do not think that it is too far away. The position is that hon. Members who are members of the N.U.M. made their power felt at a certain conference. They were rightly concerned. I am not doubting that. They had a vested interest and the interests of their members to look after. They were concerned about pit closures and the Prime Minister and other people were concerned about the way the N.U.M. might vote on a certain resolution.
  Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Prime Minister used roguery or treachery? Is he impugning the Prime Minister's character in the action he took immediately prior to the conference at Scarborough?
  The Deputy Chairman: I had not taken the remarks in that way. I am sure that the hon. Member will clarify the point.
  Mr. Emery: Indeed I will, Mr. Irving. There are a number of instances where the charge of roguery can be brought against certain people. That was not what I was implying. I was saying that the Prime Minister wanted a deal. Any
  1382
  hon. Member in this Committee who does not believe that this sort of thing happens at trade union conferences and at party conferences many times is living in another world.
  Mr. McGuire: The Tory party conference does not vote at all.
  Mr. Emery: We do not have the block vote, so we are not affected by this. I invite the hon. Gentleman to the next Tory Party conference. He is talking without knowledge or experience.
  Mr. McGuire: It is a proud boast that the Tory Party conference does not vote. Indeed, Tories are aghast when anyone seeks to vote at their conference. I believe that the vote at the last conference was the first for many years. It is not a feature of Tory Party conferences to have votes.
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no mention of the Tory Party conference in the Amendment. I hope that the Committee will come back to the Amendment.
  Mr. Emery: I realise that only too well, Mr. Irving. Perhaps I have missed out by not having an Amendment put down on that matter. I wanted just to clear up a point, since what the hon. Gentleman has said is incorrect, as he knows. However, it is fun, even at this hour—perhaps it is more acceptable at this hour.
  But it is the case, as he knows, that the announcement of the prolongation of the life of these 16 pits was made when the vote of the N.U.M. was most needed. Certainly, there was managerial reason. However, another reason is probably that the Government's management of the economy was so poor that there was heavy unemployment, so this is an even greater condemnation of the Prime Minister in his interference.
  The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not for the Chair to decide on that issue, but the hon. Gentleman cannot elaborate on the matter on this Amendment.
  Mr. Emery: I shall come back to the Amendment, Mr. Irving. I am sorry that I have not made myself clear.
  We are concerned about the way in which the management of the coal industry has been interfered with. We

  1383
  cannot see any argument for keeping open pits which had been properly planned and scheduled for closure. The Clause allows this sort of interference to go on and the Amendment tries to impose a time limit on such interference. It would surely seem plain that the amount of money involved here is to be such as to carry the cost of these 16 pits for four years. Indeed, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-east (Mr. Swain) put down an Amendment which would have entailed even greater cost over an even longer time. We cannot project that the period should be as long as the Government propose. It cannot be in the interest of proper management or of the industry as a whole. Surely we all want to see the retraining of miners made redundant carried through as quickly as possible. Delay in that is bad for the industry and the prospects of the men.
  Mr. Swain: Before making speeches from the Front Bench opposite the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) should do a little homework. If he had read the statements made here and elsewhere, he would have known that the 16 pits will close during the next 12 months and not in the next four years, or four years from now, as he suggests.
  Mr. Emery: I assure the hon. Member that before I get up to make any speech, wherever it is, I do my homework. The hon. Member is right. Postponement is until the end of March, but the cost factor, and the cost factor involved by the Clause, runs to between £5 million and £8 million. We believe that that is too much to pay, particularly when it is not money which the Coal Board initially expected to meet in its pit closure programme. That sums up the position. We are sustaining uneconomic pits, and it is wrong to do so.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Speeches of the kind just made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) make some of us believe that it is Tory policy to make sure that pits close regardless of the impact on the men. The hon. Member has made a statement about the cost of not closing the pits. No one says that the cost will be £5 million or even £8 million. We do not as yet know. No one knows how long they will be kept open, but my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.
  1384
  Swain) was correct in saying that they will probably be closed within 12 months.
  The Coal Board has all along tried to phase the closing of pits to avoid greatest harm for the men. That is the easiest way to ensure that the welfare of the men is cared for. The hon. Member for Honiton criticises the Government, however, for having second thoughts and deciding to grant the money to enable the Coal Board to phase its closures. Some of us on this side want a greater phasing out.
  It does not behove the hon. Member to score party points on an issue of this kind. As I said earlier, the welfare of the men is involved. They can be thrown out of work willy-nilly. It will be impossible for the Coal Board to make certain that jobs are provided at other collieries or elsewhere in the same area unless more time is given. I was surprised at the hon. Member's attitude. I hope that he will realise that it is the welfare of the men and their future which matters. They have given long service in an arduous and dangerous job in the mining industry and they should be looked after better than the impression which the hon. Member has given.
  Mr. Freeson: The point of Amendment No. 20, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), would be to increase the initial limit from £5 million to £7 million to meet the Board's losses on deferment of colliery closures. It would not affect the maximum provision of £8 million to which the sum may be raised by order.
  The purpose of the Amendment is already accomplished implicitly in the Bill. If further moneys need to be made available, my right hon. Friend the Minister has power to place the necessary Order and get approval. Therefore, although I recognise the point of my hon. Friends in wanting to speak to this issue, it is not necessary to press the Amendment, because my right hon. Friend already has power under the Clause to deal with the question which it raises.
  4.45 a.m.
  I want to turn my remarks in the main to those of Members of the Opposition. Of the two Amendments in their names the first would have the effect of reducing

  1385
  the financial provision to £3 million, and the second would exclude the power of the Minister to increase the provision by order to the £8 million to which I was referring just now.
  The financial provision depends primarily on the estimate of likely costs of the current programme of deferments, and £3 million might not, on current estimates, be sufficient. What in effect hon. Members opposite would be doing, if they were to have their way, would be to impose on the N.C.B. additional expenditure. Whatever their views might be on the decision which was taken at the request of the Government, if the Amendment were carried the result would be to impose on the N.C.B. additional expenditure for action requested of the N.C.B. by the Government.
  This is not new. I am merely stating what has been stated quite specifically and publicly before. I do not know why the hon. Member should look astonished at this. This would be running counter to the whole principle applicable to other aspects of the Bill and the policy which it represents. Where the Government are seeking to establish a policy which, for social and economic reasons, and on national grounds, the nationalised boards undertake, the cost of the policy should be carried on public funds; that is clearly shown to be the position. Were the Amendment of hon. Members opposite to be accepted the action which would result would run counter to such policy, which is in accordance with our policy in this Bill.
  However, I want to turn to one or two points which were raised by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). He raised the question of consultation with regional councils' chairmen, which was referred to in the White Paper. I got the impression from his remarks that this came as some fresh item of news to him. It is not a fresh item of news. It was stated publicly, before the White Paper was published, that this was to be the policy in regard to closures. This is one of the reasons why it is necessary to have the power to raise the sum to £8 million if necessary at a later date, because while it may be sound policy—and there is no question that it is sound policy—for the Board to pursue a particular closure programme, it does not follow that that particular order of closures in particular
  1386
  development areas and regions would be the right one to follow through. It is for this reason that the policy of establishing close liaison with the regional councils has now been put forward by the Government and is operative.
  This might well create situations in future—it might—where the order of closures which in particular areas the N.C.B. had established, some time back, perhaps, or currently, would be sought to be varied by the regional councils in the light of particular regional circumstances applying to them at that time. If the N.C.B. were to co-operate in this broad economic approach, this might impose on the Board, for the economic and social benefit of a region as a whole, additional expenditure which it would be unreasonable to impose upon the Board, just as it has been unreasonable to impose upon the N.C.B. the cost of closures requested by the Government for this winter.
  Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he clear up a direct question I asked him? Who has the final decision? Is this decision, in other words, being left with the N.C.B.? Or, if not with it, with whom? Because interfering with management at that stage is very dangerous indeed.
  Mr. Freeson: The operative word is "consultation". The decision does rest with the N.C.B., but it is not an empty exercise, but a proper and sound procedure in the light of regional needs. I hope that we have every hon. Member of the Committee in support of such liaison where we have serious regional problems current in this industry, in areas of unemployment higher than in other parts of the country.
  The point which I am making is that, for the same reasons as we are seeking to establish for this winter's deferments, it would be wrong to put these costs, which are the result of national or regional economic and social policy, on the Coal Board. The comments of the hon. Member for Honiton about the decision about the winter deferments were unnecessary and unworthy.
  Mr. Emery: They were quite true.
  Mr. Freeson: They arose from an unemployment situation, which is not something to be made into party capital.

  1387
  There are serious problems in these areas. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow the logic of what he has been implying, one can only assume that he wants to see a continuation of miners being put out of work in areas where there are already serious problems of unemployment. Again, I must tell the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that this is not a joking matter. Thousands of men and serious unemployment problems are involved.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a joking matter that the fortunes of these miners should be played with so that the political opportunities of the Prime Minister can be enhanced thereby?
  Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is continuing to play this way and to turn a serious situation into a light-hearted political joke. I have explained why these winter deferments were absolutely necessary. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make party political capital out of it, that is his business. There were sound reasons for this policy, just as there are sound reasons for seeking to establish this close liaison at regional level wherever there is a programme of closures. I hope that I shall always have the support of hon. Members in trying to improve a regional situation where unemployment threatens.
  Mr. David Lane: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny a report in The Times that the Minister of Power was not in agreement with the Prime Minister's proposal to defer these closures?
  Mr. Freeson: I can confirm that that is not correct.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Although it has not been entirely satisfactory, the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation has shown that the Coal Board would suffer a substantial financial loss if the Amendment were accepted and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.

  (REIMBURSEMENT OF ADDITIONAL COST OF USING COAL IN GENERATING ELEC TRICITY OR PRODUCING GAS.)
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 5, leave out:
  'or any area gas board'.
  This is a probing Amendment which, I understand, we are taking with Amendment No. 29, in page 4, line 9, leave out "or producing gas".
  The Clause provides £45 million for reimbursing the additional cost of using coal to generate electricity or produce gas, and I want to deal particularly with the latter. Is it logical to provide this money to distort the developments now taking place in the gas industry? I have before me the Annual Report and Accounts of the Gas Council, produced in July, this year. On page 6, there is a very good description of the development of natural gas, particularly in Sheffield, where 50 million cubic feet a day went into the national system completed in 1964 for Algerian gas.
  In the very comprehensive review of the fuels for producing gas, it is shown that total consumption of coal for all purposes last year was 16 million tons, compared with 17½ million tons and in the Annual Report of The Gas Council, on page 11, there is a review of sources of gas, and particular reference to the uses of oil by modern gas-making techniques which are also outlined in that section of the Report. For instance, the quantity of oil used for gas making in 1965–66 was 2,529,000 tons and in the following year, last year, was approximately 3,492,000 tons. This is the background of the development made by the Gas Council which has been revealed as very able.
  In the White Paper on Fuel Policy, on page 5, there is the statement:
  "In recent years the traditional methods of making gas from coal have been rapidly superseded by oil-reforming processes and, by this year, planned gas production was about two-thirds from oil and only one-third from coal."
  On pages 7 and 8, the development of natural gas is dealt with and paragraph 16 says:
  "Natural gas, produced and delivered on shore through sea-pipes by the producing companies, must be carried to the distribution networks."

  1389
  It goes on to outline the extent to which the networks have developed and says, in paragraph 17:
  "Sales of town gas last year were equivalent to about 1,000 m.c.f.d. of natural gas."
  On page 9, it says:
  "The Government's studies have suggested that the saving in resources from introducing natural gas is likely to be highest where it commands the greatest price premium."
  This is a study of the techniques and economics of generating gas. Is it right, and, therefore, relevant, that a Clause of this type should so affect the policy of the Gas Council, not only of using gas produced from oil, but from natural gas? I hope that the Minister will answer this question: to what extent will this clause distort development of the gas industry and to what extent is it contrary to the cheap energy policy, hearing in mind that £45 million are involved? There could well be distortion of that development plan, admittedly for good reasons. We have had debates on electricity with which I am not dealing, where there might be a good case for allowing distortion but we must be told to what extent development will be distorted by this Clause.
  I propose the Amendment at this hour by way of question and look forward to the Minister's comments.
  5.0 a.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I and other Scottish hon. Members have expressed concern that the price of gas in Scotland is 24 per cent. above the average for England and Wales. I and others support this Amendment because we are a little concerned that if gas is included it could adversely affect the Scottish position. The Scottish Gas Board uses a great deal of coal. The increase in the price of coal last year, according to the Board's Annual Report, cost it £300,000. I am told that the reason is that, for social reasons and to support the industry, the Scottish Gas Board has given preference to coal. If we have done this off our own bat in Scotland, and if, because of this particular clause, the other area boards will put an emphasis on coal and will get the extra pay for it, this appalling differential of 24 per cent. could become even worse.
  I want an assurance that people in Scotland, who already pay a quarter more
  1390
  for gas, will not have to pay an even larger differential.
  Mr. McGuire: I wish to speak to this Amendment because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) said that it was in the nature of a probing Amendment. I think that by that he meant to try to find out how much coal the Gas Board would take which it would not take if left to its own devices.
  When my right hon. Friend introduced this conception of making the gas and electricity boards take extra coal in the July debate, I think I am right in saying that the figure he mentioned was an extra 300,000 tons to help the mining industry in this period of consolidation. I want to know whether it is, in fact, that figure or a much higher figure. I hope that it is a higher figure, because, although I have criticisms of the C.E.G.B., which I have made before, I certainly have some criticisms of the Gas Board.
  First, I think that its estimates of the amount of gas that it has to sell to treble the existing sales in the very short period of time mentioned in the White Paper are absolutely fantastic. I do not see how the market will absorb it. If it is not to be absorbed in the market, but in the power stations, then it will displace even more coal. Therefore, we should look carefully at this matter.
  There is another reason why I think that the Gas Board owes a debt to the coal industry. I am not saying that in the context of producing cheap gas it is not right, but the trouble is that we have never had a co-ordinated energy policy. We have had each corner of the energy market fighting for its own share, but no part of the energy market has run away from its commitment to coal as fast as the gas industry did.
  Goodness knows, we have heard enough talk last night and this morning about optimistic forecasts of coal to be taken by various sectors of the energy market—we have heard ad nauseam how wrong and optimistic they were—but if one looks at the forecasts made years ago, whether in the so-called Ridley Report or in the general estimates, of 250 million tons coal production in the period 1965–67, contained in those reports—and hon. Members will be able to check this—the requirements of the gas industry were put at a figure of about 27 million

  1391
  tons now and going up to about 31 million tons. The coal industry planned for this kind of requirement, and, because the gas industry requires a special type of coal, a huge investment was made to satisfy these forward estimates.
  We all know the history now. We have had the methane out of the Sahara and we have had this new bonanza of the North Sea gas. I cannot understand why we should be going mad to get rid of what I consider to be a valuable asset as quickly as we can, not in the nation's interest, but in the interests of the people who say, "The quicker we take the gas out the less you pay for it". The price has not yet been determined. During my Second Reading speech—and this was reported in The Times of 21st November—I forecast that the oil companies who control the gas head would demand a higher sterling price because of devaluation. We can assume that the estimates of cheap gas based on a price of 2½d. a therm landed ashore will be a little bit out, and that it will be dearer than that, and after adding the conversion costs it will be dearer still. Thus, this bonanza which everybody seems hell-bent on dissipating as soon as possible might not be the bonanza that people think it will be.
  How much of the £45 million will go to the gas boards, and how much will go to the C.E.G.B.? If we can get some answers to these questions we will have a better idea of the extent to which the market is being distorted to help the coal industry.
  The gas industry owes a debt to the coal industry, and if it helps out in a difficult period it will go some way to repay that debt.
  Mr. Freeson: Perhaps I might start by referring to the question asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what will be the effect on the future development of the gas industry. I do not think that it is possible to quantify in exact terms the effect of the additional coal burn which the gas industry is undertaking to assist the slowing down the rundown in the coal industry. It is so small compared with what the C.E.G.B. will be doing to help that it is not possible to give exact figures now. I am not necessarily quoting a figure to which my right hon. Friend has
  1392
  previously referred, but in round figures it may be about 300,000 tons this year.
  This must not be taken as a hard and fast figure. It is a very small figure in relation to the 6 million tons or more per year which will be burned additionally, chiefly by the C.E.G.B. It will be appreciated, therefore, that in terms of such a range, whether it be an accurate figure or not, there cannot be the slightest marginal effect on the future development of the gas industry.
  What will happen is that in particular localities where plant might have been switched to oil consumption ahead of the advent of natural gas this will not now take place if it is practicable to keep to coal burning until the natural gas arrives. But the amount is so small that it will not affect the advent of natural gas, which is essential for the development of this industry in the years ahead.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), in almost a traditional exercise, asked what would be the effect on Scottish gas prices. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for raising this, but I had hoped that by now, from a study of the policy outlined in the White Paper, and reflected in the Bill, he would have appreciated that areas such as Scotland which have had to pay higher prices for fuel—the hon. Gentleman tends to exaggerate at times, but I do not blame him for that, either—will benefit to a degree from the policy being put forward, because the cost will be carried by the Exchequer when coal is being burned specifically to assist the coal industry, whether it be for electricity generation, or for the production of gas.
  Any additional coal burn required by Government policy as outlined in the White Paper will be paid for by the general body of taxpayers, whereas until now that particular additional cost in the case of Scotland, or any other particular locality, has had to be carried by consumers. I hope this will at least make the hon. Member a little happier than he has been in the past, and satisfy a certain amount of doubt.
  I have answered the points so far as I am able which were put to me by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). I have indicated the rough figure for the amount of additional coal the gas industry will be taking. As my right hon.

  1393
  Friend the Minister said in the debate on 18th July, the electricity and gas industries have agreed to use additional coal. This was not a Government edict; it arose out of genuine consultation. The famous private conference at Selsdon Park was one such occasion when this matter was discussed at some length, and the Bill reflects the policy of assistance which the electricity and gas industries will be giving to coal, and in turn, the assistance being given by the Exchequer which will carry the additional cost involved.
  Mr. Emery: May I, first, bring us back to what is the basic point of the Amendment, and, indeed, of the Clause itself. It is the extra coal burn which is being projected by the £45 million subsidy over this period. I am amazed. I had not believed that the amount the gas boards would be taking would be as low as 300,000 tons. I know that this had been rumoured, but it did seem to me that if the figure was as low as that—and the words of the Parliamentary Secretary were that this would have the smallest marginal I effect on the coal industry—the disruption this might well bring about for this very minute amount was something which might be the position; but it has been confirmed by the hon. Gentleman in answering the direct question.
  May I suggest that we have again to realise that the matter comes back to the question whether it is right—particularly with this very small amount—to keep uneconomical pits open. That is really the position, and it allows me on that line—because the argument is equally the same on this Amendment as the other—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright). I do not come to this Dispatch Box, and nor does any other hon. Member, without being highly and completely conversant with the human and social problems that closures mean. Nobody in the House ought to accuse anybody of not considering that. I do not believe that there is any hon. Gentleman who does not realise the immense problem that is involved.
  But—and this is the important difference between soma of us—some people think that the ordinary miner will benefit from a fast rundown as opposed
  1394
  to a slow rundown; and that is a quite basic matter which ought to be faced and is not, so far as this Amendment is concerned, faced at all.
  I believe that the sooner those miners who it is established will be made redundant are retrained and are in new jobs, the better for them, the better for the mining industry and the better for the country. The better for them, because the younger they are in a new job the greater their chances of being able to settle down. They will not have reached 55, at which it will be more difficult to retrain them, and they will stand a better chance of having a new life. It will be better for the industry because it will be competitive if we use the most economic pits—
  5.15 a.m.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright: When he talks of a rapid rundown, does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is very difficult to provide the jobs for the retrained men? He should remember that a Tory Government closed down many pits without help being provided. Those closed by this Government represent a responsibility of the Coal Board to find jobs for the men concerned.
  Mr. Emery: I was trying not to make any political point. That rundown under the Conservative Government was greater than what we are discussing now, but there was no major unemployment in those areas above the national average. Once target figures for a rundown have been set, the faster that they can be achieved the better for everybody—the miner, the economy and the industry.
  Something which particularly affects coalburn was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), on Second Reading. He said, in column 385, that the spending of the £45 million was to get 10,000 more men in the pits in a year and that if the Clause were not passed, after the first year the rate of decline would go back. That is so, so if the Minister does his sum again he will find that the first year produces the extra 6 million tons and it is these same people who go on producing.
  The Parliamentary Secretary must realise this, since he tried, in column 392, to contradict my hon. Friend. For the first year the rundown will decrease from

  1395
  45,000 to 35,000, but from then on it will revert to the original level. This was my hon. Friend's clear point and no one should be in doubt. This is a marginal amount for the gas industry and I am sorry, because the trouble it has caused makes one think that it must be greater.
  I am surprised that the Minister has felt it worth while to continue with a disruption in the gas industry for this small amount of tonnage. However, if he feels that it is essential, I would not urge my hon. Friends to divide on this matter.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 4, line 19, leave out '£45,000,000' and insert '£25,000,000'.
  I will not detain the Committee because, having spoken to my fellow sponsors of the Amendment, I can sum up the case by asking two questions. I notice that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has assisted us again by suggesting in a later Amendment that £45 million should be deleted and £60 million inserted. My Amendment, on the other hand, would reduce the £45 million to £25 million.
  The two questions are these. First, is it wise, when having such a new development and paying substantial amounts of money, to subsidise the use of coal in circumstances when it would not be used? In other words, is it wise to spend £45 million without Parliament having an opportunity to review the position in the interim? The Minister might take the view that if we were to reduce the amount to £25 million, the job could not be done because the money would run out.
  When discussing previous Amendments we were told that certain amounts could be changed by Order, but I gather that that would not be possible under this Clause. If £25 million were inserted and the money ran out in, say, two years' time, could not the Minister approach Parliament for more? I suggest that it would be wise to devise a form of words which would enable Parliament to review
  1396
  the progress made in the interim, and certainly before 1st November, 1971.
  Secondly, we have tried to leave out the gas boards to prevent their modernisation plans from being disrupted. Our efforts have not proved fruitful. Will the right hon. Gentleman review the progress of this entirely new venture between now and 1st April, 1971?
  Mr. Emery: We would like to have seen more direct control over this large sum of money, with Parliament having an opportunity to discuss the matter in the interim. Would the Minister be willing to make a statement in the House, or publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to show when £25 million of the £45 million has been used up? If he will give that assurance I am sure that my hon. Friend would find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Freeson: I see no reason why this cannot be done. There is no reason why, by way of a Question at the appropriate time, a statement should not be made.
  It might be helpful if I were to indicate the basis on which the figure of £45 million has been arrived at. It is based on the assumption of assistance at a rate of 6 million tons a year for a period of three years and eight months—a total of 22 million tons of additional coal use over the period. It is possible that this quantity may be increased, and that is why we have said, "six million tons or more." The quantity may also be affected by the availability of other fuels as it is not intended that the additional costs of using coal in place of other fuels expected to be, but not, in fact, available, will be eligible for reimbursement.
  There is no precise estimate of cost per ton available at present, but it is presumed that £2 per ton will be sufficient. The actual cost at the margin will be higher than the average and the costs will themselves be affected by movements in the costs of the fuels displaced; for example, by the continuation or the removal of the 2d. a gallon Middle East war surcharge on fuel oil. The provision of £45 million is regarded as sufficient to cover a range of possible variations in costs per ton and in the quantity used over the period to March, 1971.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has not said how we shall know when the £45 million figure has been reached, but he has tried to be most helpful and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.

  (INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 27, to leave out `sixteen' and insert `thirteen.'
  One again, my hon. Friends have allowed me to put forward their views. The hour is very late and I want to be very brief. Unless there are really compelling reasons for increasing the membership of the Board at a time when we are discussing voluntary wastage, moving men around, and a loss of thousands of men a year, to say nothing of what can be described as a savage rundown in pits, I must say something on this Amendment.
  The rundown is being intensified and it would appear to be utter folly for the Minister to suggest at such a time that there should be a major increase in the membership of the Board. There have been substantial developments calling for the attention of management, I agree; such as the new area structure which, on page 30 of the Annual Report is described as being largely self-sufficient for each area. Staff members have risen in one year by no fewer than 1,200 so it would seem that the areas are becoming more self-sufficient. It appears that the number of pits is being considerably reduced, and, while the problems will pose enormous amounts of work for management, would it really not be possible to carry on with the same numbers on the Board?
  Our Amendment is modest. All we ask is that, instead of 16, as the Bill recommends, there should be 13 as a compromise. The Minister must be aware that some of us on this sic e of the Committee are suspicious and a little worried about the increasing amount of patronage available to the Government. I do not suggest that any member of the present
  1398
  Board is not a gifted and enlightened man, but Ministers of the future might wish to take advantage of this enormous amount of patronage available for providing jobs for the boys. When we bear in mind the appointing of members to boards, committees, commissions, and so on which has been done by this Government, then I think we should be very careful before taking the proposed step.
  Surely this is the worst possible time to increase the number of members of the Coal Board, but if the Minister will not accept our Amendment would he consider the very sensible proposal which we would make?
  5.30 a.m.
  Mr. Harold Neal: I do not intend to delay the Committee for long at this hour, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not express my direct opposition to the proposal in the Clause to increase from 11 to 16 the membership of the Board. After long and unique experience of the industry, including Ministerial experience, I cannot imagine why this proposal has been foisted on the Minister in this way.
  More and more over the years the Board has been passing into the hands of people who know little about the industry, who have no practical experience of it, and no knowledge of it at all except through a railway carriage window. If the Clause proposed to put on the Board five practical miners I would cheerfully follow the Minister into the Division Lobby to support it, but the opposite is the case.
  Someone in the Ministry or the Coal Board must have resurrected the Fleck Report—the Report of the Advisory Committee on Organisation—published in 1955. That Committee recommended that the Coal Board should be increased to 12 members but, in an addendum, Dr. Fleck, as he then was, suggested that the number should be increased to 18. I think that someone at the Ministry or the Coal Board has found that Report and has thought that it would be a nice proposal to put in the Bill.
  I learned over the grapevine, however, that the five additional members—and I am open here to correction by the Minister—are to be the area chairmen of the new areas. They will be given national status. If that is the case, it means that those area chairmen will be commuting

  1399
  between Glasgow and Cardiff, Edinburgh and Cardiff, and between Doncaster and Nottingham and London, attending Board meetings as well as carrying on their normal duties as area chairmen in the provinces. That is a derogatory proposal.
  For years it has been the practice to call divisional chairmen to London to apprise them of national intentions, and that could easily continue without giving these men national status. We know that the Chairman of the Board has a private plane so that he can conduct his peregrinations over the coalfields. Will each of the new members have a plane as well, so that he can commute in the way I have indicated? It seems a fantastic proposal.
  What added responsibility has arisen in this declining industry to merit five more members on the Board? What does the Minister think will be the psychological effect of this proposal on the men in the coal industry? What is a man rendered unemployed, and probably walking the streets to find a job, to think of this proposal to create fresh Board members? Inevitably, this proposal, that will inevitably outdo Parkinson in creating more jobs, means that the area chairmen when they are absent at London meetings will have to delegate responsibilities to someone else.
  I have always been opposed to the inclusion of part-time members of the Board. Part-time membership has provided a repository for retired trade union members and indigent businessmen. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke of nepotism and "jobs for the boys". Part-time members of the Board attending six or eight meetings a year cannot be adequately apprised of what is going on to take a proper part in those meetings. A Board of 16 would be too unwieldly for control. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will think again about this derogatory proposal to spend more money and to increase the personnel of the Board.
  Mr. Marsh: I hope that it will be of assistance to the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage to explain my reasons for this proposal. I quite understand the arguments put forward against
  1400
  it. They are perfectly logical and are shared by many people. This idea was not "Fleck", but "Marsh". Despite the run down, this is still a very big industry—
  Mr. Neal: It was before.
  Mr. Marsh: Will my hon. Friend allow me to continue?
  It is still very large by British and international standards. A Board of this size is not abnormal. The Steel Corporation has 16 members on the Board, the N.C.B. will have 16 if this proposal is agreed to. The Gas Council has 16 and the Electricity Council has 20. I.C.I. has a board of 24. A board of this size is not spectacularly large, although that is no reason for making a small board bigger.
  The reason I came to this conclusion is that, unlike most of the nationalised industries, this industry has not a federal structure. The sole top management is contained in Hobart House and it has no regional autonomy as the more federalised industries have. Already, there are very serious problems which have a regional flavour about them in the industry. It is not possible to compare the problems of the central coalfields with those of Wales and Scotland. They are almost totally different mining industries with totally different problems.
  We are trying to produce a system whereby we shall have closer contact and liaison with the chairmen of the regional councils. We have 17 area boards responsible directly with the divisional chairmen between and with no real status under the new set-up. It is very doubtful whether a regional chairman has any powers over the area chairmen. The 17 areas report direct to Hobart House to a Board which is a functional one. It has a member for industrial relations, one for production, one for science and so on. I do not think the production director, the marketing director or the science director can be properly cognisant of the 17 area reports received every month.
  The purpose would, therefore, be to ensure that in addition to the functional members there were on the National Board, say, four regional members with direct responsibility, as a kind of one-man microcosm of the Board as a whole, to provide the link between the regions and the Board and to be present at Board

  1401
  meetings as members of it. There is a great difference between attending a meeting of the Board as an official invited to sit in and joining on equal batting terms with the other members.
  With the very real difficulties that the industry faces—some of the biggest arising from regional problems, which differ from region to region—I thought there was an advantage in having regional directors who were full-time members of the Board and have full knowledge of its functional activities within their regions. We have this in the British Steel Corporation, which is proving very successful. For example, the impact of the policies of the production director at Hobart House differs according to the various regions in which they are implemented. Therefore, I thought it right to have regional representation at that level.
  It may be felt that the proposal provides jobs for the boys, and that I was attracted to the idea of having patronage over the Coal Board which would enable me to control it. That is something which I sometimes think about in the early hours of the morning, but I do not think that any Minister of Power is likely to do that with these appointments.
  Some people think that this produces new jobs, but if region it directors are appointed there is then no job for the existing divisional chairmen. They would be cut out, and the areas would be responsible to their own particular regional chairman. It would not be a question of appointing more people in total.
  Perhaps one should not get into an argument on salaries, and I do not express a view one way or the other. Within the nationalised industries there is little difference between the salary of a divisional chairman and that of a Board member. It is open to argument whether that should be so. Therefore, there will be no increase in the total numbers employed, and extra cash received by individuals will be so minimal as to have no meaning.
  The Committee must decide whether there is enough in the argument for having the funnelling of the 17 areas into the four regional directors, who will be central and on equal terms with the other functional members of the Board. I do not believe that functional directors can
  1402
  absorb 17 area reports in a meaningful way every month.
  5.45 a.m.
  It is crucial for this exercise that the proposals of the 17 areas should make an impact on the Board at every level. It seems to me that having those four people on the Board and cutting out the divisional chairmen is the best way of achieving this. I do not propose to die in the last ditch on the proposals; it is a matter of opinion. But given the importance and the implications of the job, this is probably better than the existing method.
  Mr. McGuire: One of the worst features of the proposal to increase the number of whole-time members of the Board to 13 and the part-time members to three will be its effect in the coalfields. One constantly meets the argument there that at local and divisional level—and now at national level, which has never previously been the case—the Board seems to be too keen on over-manning in what the chaps I used to work with in the pit call the white collar trade. I must not be too disparaging, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is an eloquent spokesman for colliery managers and other white collar workers.
  This will be a damaging indictment of the Board because at a time when the industry is contracting, we are increasing the number of people on the Board. It will have a very bad effect and what the Minister has said has not reassured me that there is any need to alter the position of the five divisional chairmen. It seems that one of the motives for it is to give them a sinecure against possible redundancy. In my time with the Board it has been altered several times. To argue that the divisional chairmen are sort of emasculated men who can do little to influence events and relay opinions to the Board is not sufficient. If they cannot, we need to alter the structure.
  I want to direct the attention of the Committee to the position of the part-time members. We want to have men, either as part-time members, or as full-time members, who can contribute something to the efficiency of the Coal Board. We have only two part-time members at present, although I know that if we accept the Government's proposal we

  1403
  will have the chance to increase the number to three.
  We have Cecil King. We all know that that lad knows all about coal. He owns the Daily Mirror, but he certainly knows all about getting coal. He has done some lashing on in his time in the pit and has got plenty of coal, the hard way. I do not know quite how he was selected. Obviously, it was not because of his detailed knowledge of the industry. I do not know whether he makes a telling contribution to the Board's activities.
  Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend should not be too disparaging about Mr. King. He was responsible for providing 11 million copies of an article in favour of a coal-power station at Seaton Carew.
  Mr. McGuire: My right hon. Friend is clairvoyant. I was coming to that. I was about to ask if he was appointed because he is well known to be sympathetic towards conventional power stations. If anyone wants to advocate an argument through a daily newspaper his is the best newspaper, because it has the highest circulation. If Mr. Cecil King and the Daily Mirror advocate the building of conventional power stations—and they can do it more eruditely than I can—this is a good reason for keeping him on the Board, as long as he continues to advocate common-sense policies.
  The other part-time member is a professor, Professor Kahn. There is a place in this society for professors, but I believe that this House has learnt to its cost that people place too much credence on what professors say. They all say at the same time very different things. If we laid economists, statisticians and professors end to end they would still not reach agreement. I do not know what branch of economics Professor Kahn specialises in. No doubt he brings a powerful intellect to the activities of the Board.
  This proposal will be seen by the ordinary miner in the sense that, however erudite and however wide the activities Cecil King engages in, these are not the qualifications required of a part-time member of the Board. My right hon. Friend should seek to appoint as a part-time member someone recognised to have detailed knowledge of the day-to-day
  1404
  workings of the Board and who knows something of the fears and aspirations of the ordinary man in the coal fields. A person of such qualities on the Board would go a long way to reinforcing the argument that part-time members have a particular contribution to make.
  I understand that these members will be in addition to the Chairman. We have a deputy chairman and Mr. Arthur John, Director of Finance. There is also Bill Webber, Director of Industrial Relations; Mr. Grainger, the Member for Science, and Mr. Sheppard, the Member for Production. I believe that two whole-time posts are vacant—those of the marketing and staff managers. I wonder whether the staff manager appointment could be dealt with by the spokesman for C.O.S.A. If the men in the industry are to be reassured that their interests will still be safeguarded by the Board, it would be better to see a man of the qualities I have described appointed to overall charge of staff policy.
  I do not quite accept the argument that we should seek to put these five divisional chairmen on the Board—these poor souls who are not in a position, apparently, to be able to relay information, perhaps because no one takes any notice of them. Apparently, they do not know whether they have power over the area boards. That is a fantastic and ridiculous argument.
  One may ask why the Board is being reconstituted in this way, why the old divisions have been carved up and why the title of divisional chairman is being retained. If it is asked, "What does the divisional chairman do and does anyone take notice of him when he is doing it?" the answer, apparently, is that the new idea is to make him a full-time member of the Board. To dispel any accusation that we are creating "jobs for the boys" while doing away with the men who produce the coal, we should not be consolidating and increasing the jobs of those who do not produce. The way to do that, if those divisional chairmen have no powers, is to give them the powers. I cannot accept that they do not have the powers. I cannot accept that when they know the problems in the regions, to make them effective they have to be planted on to the N.C.B. as whole-time members to make a different cast. That does not make common sense.

  1405
  I ask my right hon. Friend not to pursue the question of having the extra members, certainly not in this form. I have no objection to appointing, as we should have already, three part-time members. Let us appoint someone who is recognised as knowing something about the grass roots of the mining industry so that when men go to the rostrum at trade union conferences and ask what the Union is doing, the divisional secretaries and presidents of the National Union of Mineworkers can explain the policy and show that there have not been jobs for the boys. The object of the exercise is to make a stronger and better Board in the interest of everybody concerned and to dispel the argument that it is a case of jobs for the boys.
  Mr. David Griffiths: I am astounded that whoever has advised my right hon. Friend the Minister has told him that after 20 years' experience the Board needs to be increased from 11 to 16 members. The industry is contracting with pits closing all over the country, and we are now adding more fuel to the fire. We already have a demoralised, disgruntled mining community. What will happen when the rank and file get to know that the Board is being increased to 16 members?
  It is a question not only of the Board at Hobart House. It is a question of overloading from the area general managers down to the shot firers and deputies. My right hon. Friend should go to the mining areas to ascertain the feelings of the men. Those advising my right hon. Friend do not know much about the ramifications of the mining industry. Those with experience of the pits will realise the antagonism that will confront them. I implore you, Mr. Minister, to reconsider this—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member must address me, not the Minister.
  Mr. Griffiths: I beg pardon, Mr. Grant-Ferris.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the position. I visualise that immense difficulties will confront him. If we are to have an increase in the Board at Hobart House and to displace district chairmen, there will be difficulty in having power in negotiations. There will be a prolongation of negotiations, causing irrit-
  1406
  ability and bad temper. I am sure that anyone who knows anything about the industry will deplore the increase in the membership of the Board from 11 to 16.
  6.0 a.m.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: I shall never cease to wonder how at this time it should be proposed that the numbers on the Board, part-time and full-time, should be increased. I have in mind the considerations already put by my hon. Friends prior to my taking my feet. First, of course, is the fact that the industry is contracting. I think that this is the nub of the question.
  There is in the industry an institution corresponding with the Coal Board, and that is the National Union of Mineworkers. I will take my own area, with which I am best acquainted. In the Counties of Fife, Clackmannan and Stirling we had three full-time trade union members; we had an office at which everyone could call. Now, at this time, with the Scottish figure of employed manpower having gone down from 80,000 to 40,000, we find there is no need for any trade union office, no use for any trade union official, in the County of Fife, my own county, or Stirling County. People have now to go to Edinburgh, where the Coal Board's Scottish headquarters are.
  Ten years ago the number of men employed in the coal-mining industry in the United Kingdom was about 700,000. Now we have only 390,000. In my area—I suppose this will be happening in many other areas of the United Kingdom—we have had complete rationalisation of our industry. Many pits have been closed; most of the administrative staff have moved from the counties I have mentioned to Edinburgh; we have workshops now completely rationalised; instead of two large workshops we have only one.
  It is a very serious question that we could have 10 years ago a Divisional Chairman, along with a group of the National Union of Mineworkers, with complete control of the Scottish Division, and that now we find that, with this very much reduced manpower, we are to change the whole set-up. I think that there is something very seriously wrong with the Minister when this proposal is put forward at this time.
  Mr. Lane: May I, briefly, support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), Who

  1407
  moved this Amendment so persuasively on behalf of his absent hon. Friends? All through the night we have been discussing the problems of adjustment of a great national industry. I also have a personal problem of adjustment, if hon. Members will allow me to mention it, as this is the first time I have taken part in a coal debate. Only two years ago I was working for an international oil company. Obviously, whereas previously I looked at power questions through the eyes of an oil company employee, I have now to try to take a broader view as a member of this Committee, and I will do my best to do that with fairness and objectivity.
  Although I have never lived in a mining community I do have some idea of the anxiety which is felt at the present time in the mining communities and by hon. Members who here represent them. In Cambridge, as hon. Members know, we have no coal mines. We have a good many consumers; we have a great many taxpayers. Of course, in this, as in all the other questions we have been discussing tonight, it is a matter of striking a balance between these interests, and I suggest that on this Clause and the question of the size of the Coal Board the Minister has to strike a balance.
  I must say that I am not yet fully convinced by his argument, even by his fuller explanation he gave this morning, fuller than that he gave on Second Reading, of his proposal. Has he considered the bare statistics of this matter? We understand that, on the best estimates, coal output is likely to fall by about 15 per cent. by 1971, and, if my arithmetic is correct, he is envisaging that the Board's membership may go up even faster than that decline—by no less than 50 per cent. Would he have a short word, before he makes his mind up, with the Minister of Transport?
  It is not often that we on this side of the Committee approve of something that the Minister of Transport proposes to do, but I understand that she is proposing to cut down the size of the British Railways Board. It would be well if the Minister of Power had a word with his right hon. Friend before finally making up his mind. I was surprised when in his speech a few minutes ago he did not deal with the point, put by his
  1408
  hon. Friends much more forcefully than I can put it, about the effect of this proposal on the morale in the coal fields.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman think further about this subject? He and the Parliamentary Secretary have said "No" with varying degrees of charm to every Amendment moved tonight. Will the right hon. Gentleman now celebrate the nearness of the dawn by accepting this very modest Amendment?
  Mr. Swain: I am interested in the Amendment and in the composition of the Coal Board in general. Since 1957, the industry has run down from 780,000 men to about 385,000 and that has been done with very little trouble for the labour relations within the industry. I must give the management at all levels and the National Union of Mineworkers at all levels credit for this magnificent exercise in industrial relations. But this Clause is the straw which will break the camel's back.
  Last Saturday night I was in my local having a pint at somebody else's expense when I was told that at a pit in the area where I lived and where there used to be one under-manager and three over-men there were now two under-managers and nine overmen, although only 410 men were now employed in the pit. It appears that the Board has to increase the number of its staff in proportion to the decrease in the number of men employed in the industry.
  During this week I have put 17 Questions to the Minister of Power to conduct an inquiry into this subject. I have found that the manpower in the industry is hopelessly out of balance, because there are far more administrative workers per 1,000 workers employed than there were only five years ago. I contend that the Coal Board does not require any more members.
  I was under the impression that when the industry was reorganised into areas, divisional chairmen would be appointed to the areas to undertake functional jobs, and with that I entirely agree. But if people have been appointed to these functional jobs in the areas, then I recommend my right hon. Friend to have a redundancy scheme for these four divisional chairmen, because there does not appear to be any function in the divisions for them, and I cannot see any

  1409
  function for them at national level. We have managed with a Board of eight and part-time members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) knows perfectly well that when the safety regulations were amended, the added responsibility of those regulations was used as a subterfuge to appoint certain part-time members. What is to be the subterfuge for the appointment of these five new members? I have heard some whispering on the Government Front Bench and I hope that it is repeated aloud so that we can all understand what is being said.
  I hope and trust that the Minister will tell the House this. I hope that the Board will not be extended by one. I do not think it is needed. It will cause more trouble in the coalfields than my right hon. Friend or most hon. Members appreciate. We live in the mining villages of Derbyshire, Yorkshire and other mining areas and we know this. We want to help the Minister and the Coal Board in maintaining the excellent relations between the Coal Board and the men which have existed for years.
  Not many weeks ago, I remind my right hon. Friend, we had a bitter experience at Hamilton, mainly because the mining community were suspicious of what our very proud Government were doing. We have to do everything in our power to prevent such tragedies to the community as nationalists taking over, as happened in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that the Minister will see the wisdom not only of accepting the Amendment, because the commonsense thing would have been to leave the figure at 8 per cent., but of giving a figure between 8 and 16 per cent.
  Mrs. Thatcher: It seems that we are almost having a "Clause stand part" debate on the Amendment. I agree with a number of hon. Gentlemen that there should not be a single increase in the membership of the Coal Board. In the arguments he put forward for the Clause, the hon. Member said that so many problems of the Board had a regional flavour that they were quite distinct and that the regional flavour was not represented on the Board. If that is his argument, he should not be asking for an increase, but for devolution to regional level to deal with these problems.
  1410
  In private industry, where there are quite large boards, one finds a regional structure with considerable powers operated at the regions. The answer to his argument for regional flavour is more power at regional level. In reading the Report, it seems to me that he has abolished the nearest thing to a region, the division. One cannot have it both ways, to abolish the division, put it forward as a great advance and then say that there is a need for more regional representation at Board level because problems have a regional flavour.
  The Board operates on a functional basis and it is said that none of the members can be expected to read the reports from the regions each month. Even if regional members were put on, functional members would not be freed from the job, and it would be their job to read every report.
  This argument appals me, because it would lead to a disaster of the kind we had when one director just plainly did not know his job. The Minister is trying to have a board operate functionally and regionally. He will have to make up his mind what he wants. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is admitting that the present Board does not know its job and cannot do the job allotted to it. This is not a reason for adding four or five more members; it is a reason for looking at the present structure and membership of the Board. Before the Committee agrees to the Clause standing part of the Bill, which I hope it will not do, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will go back and think again along the lines of the advice which has been offered to him during the debate.
  6.15 a.m.
  Mr. Marsh: The problem which I have, apart from the hour of the morning, is an inability to withstand the pressure of my colleagues and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite on an issue about which they have strong feelings. As has happened so frequently in my experience, I do not seem to have any supporters. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would support me were he here. This is clearly something which is not acceptable to either side of the Committee.
  I take the hon. Lady's point. I am not happy with things as they are in this

  1411
  relationship. There is a missing link between the area and Board levels. I ask the Committee to accept that I am prepared to consider, in another place, accepting one of these Amendments. I undertake seriously to examine the matter, but I would like time to work out what the alternative is to the original suggestion which I put up. It might be necessary not to proceed with any further appointments, or to proceed with one of the Amendments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) suggested three members instead of five.
  It is clear that my orginal proposal is not acceptable to the Committee. I would like an opportunity to look at this in another place so that I have time in which to decide what to accept, and to see what sort of structure should be considered as an alternative.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am sure that the Committee is delighted to hear the Minister taking such a reasonable attitude. He sensed the feeling of the Committee. I wish that more Ministers would adopt his attitude in similar circumstances.
  1412
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is an equally strong feeling about the high price of gas in Scotland.
  In view of the Minister's statesmanlike and helpful comments I have much pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.
  Varley.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, a.m.

COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Francistown Radio
  Francistown Radio
  Anglo-New Zealand Relations
  Anglo-New Zealand Relations
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Devaluation
  Devaluation
  Hunting Cay Island
  Hunting Cay Island
  Fiji
  Fiji
  Woomera (Anglo-Australian Agreement)
  Woomera (Anglo-Australian Agreement)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Nauru
  Nauru
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Nigerian Produce (Imports)
  Nigerian Produce (Imports)
ELECTRICITY
  Resale for Domestic Puposes (Prices)
  Resale for Domestic Puposes (Prices)
  South Eastern Electricity Board (Installations Inspection)
  South Eastern Electricity Board (Installations Inspection)
  Coal-Fired Power Stations, Wales
  Coal-Fired Power Stations, Wales
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Space Heating (Advice Service)
  Space Heating (Advice Service)
COAL
  Mining Manpower
  Mining Manpower
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  National Coal Board Workshops Seaton Delaval
  National Coal Board Workshops Seaton Delaval
  National Coal Board (Members)
  National Coal Board (Members)
  Exports
  Exports
  Coal Mining Industry (Devaluation)
  Coal Mining Industry (Devaluation)
  National Coal Board (Employees)
  National Coal Board (Employees)
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
TECHNOLOGY
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion (Departmental Committee)
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion (Departmental Committee)
  Astrophysics (Research)
  Astrophysics (Research)
  Woomera (Costs)
  Woomera (Costs)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  St. James Mission, Matabeleland (Funds)
  St. James Mission, Matabeleland (Funds)
  Devaluation
  Devaluation
  Dollar Loans (Service Payments)
  Dollar Loans (Service Payments)
  Parliamentary Papers (Bristol)
  Parliamentary Papers (Bristol)
  Companies (Annual Accounts)
  Companies (Annual Accounts)
  British Service Pensioners (Overseas Domicile)
  British Service Pensioners (Overseas Domicile)
  Inland Revenue Officer (Whittington)
  Inland Revenue Officer (Whittington)
  Selective Employment Tax (Horse Racing)
  Selective Employment Tax (Horse Racing)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Void Assessments)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Void Assessments)
  Government Publications (Term 'Billion')
  Government Publications (Term 'Billion')
  Long-Term External Indebtedness
  Long-Term External Indebtedness
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Taxation Revenue
  Taxation Revenue
  International Monetary Fund (Letter of Intent)
  International Monetary Fund (Letter of Intent)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Exchequer Extra-Statutory Assistance
  Exchequer Extra-Statutory Assistance
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire-Humberside Region)
  Derelict Land (Yorkshire-Humberside Region)
HOUSING
  Depreciation of Values (Compensation)
  Depreciation of Values (Compensation)
  Local Authority Purchases (Planning Blight)
  Local Authority Purchases (Planning Blight)
  Rent Officers (Numbers)
  Rent Officers (Numbers)
  SOUTH ARABIA
  SOUTH ARABIA
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  GIBRALTAR (INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANISATION)
  GIBRALTAR (INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANISATION)
  MR. GERALD BROOKE
  MR. GERALD BROOKE
  HONG KONG
  HONG KONG
  FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT TO JAPAN)
  FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT TO JAPAN)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tanzania—Zambia Railway
  Tanzania—Zambia Railway
  Fiji (Survey)
  Fiji (Survey)
RAILWAYS
  Wagons (Scottish Potatoes)
  Wagons (Scottish Potatoes)
  Wareham-Swanage Line (Closure)
  Wareham-Swanage Line (Closure)
ROADS
  Programme Cuts
  Programme Cuts
  New Construction and Improvements (Expenditure)
  New Construction and Improvements (Expenditure)
  Car Parking (Expenditure)
  Car Parking (Expenditure)
  Road Lighting (Cost)
  Road Lighting (Cost)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Ponies (Export)
  Ponies (Export)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Contents Analyses)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Contents Analyses)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  DEVELOPMENT AREAS
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  NORTH EAST (ALUMINIUM SMELTING PLANT)
  NORTH EAST (ALUMINIUM SMELTING PLANT)
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S LETTER
  MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S LETTER
  TELEVISION PROGRAMME (MR. PETER JAY)
  TELEVISION PROGRAMME (MR. PETER JAY)
  BRITISH PENSIONERS (OVERSEAS DOMICILE)
  BRITISH PENSIONERS (OVERSEAS DOMICILE)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Fusilier Taylor
  Fusilier Taylor
  Lieutenant-Colonel Mitchell (Public Relations Officers)
  Lieutenant-Colonel Mitchell (Public Relations Officers)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Inspectors of Explosives (Petroleum)
  Inspectors of Explosives (Petroleum)
  House of Lords (Reform)
  House of Lords (Reform)
  Mr. Thorpe (Medical Treatment)
  Mr. Thorpe (Medical Treatment)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Unemployment (Brentwood and Basildon)
  Unemployment (Brentwood and Basildon)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Employment
  Employment
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  General Medical Practitioners, Sunderland (Patients)
  General Medical Practitioners, Sunderland (Patients)
HOSPITALS
  Beds
  Beds
  Tortoises (Health Hazard)
  Tortoises (Health Hazard)
  Prescriptions (Barbiturates and Amphetamines)
  Prescriptions (Barbiturates and Amphetamines)
  St. George's Hospital (Guyanese Nurse)
  St. George's Hospital (Guyanese Nurse)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Redundant Miners (Employment)
  Redundant Miners (Employment)
  Prices and Incomes (Vetting)
  Prices and Incomes (Vetting)
SCOTLAND
  Secretary of State (Visit to Canada)
  Secretary of State (Visit to Canada)
  Scottish Retired Teachers Association (Letter)
  Scottish Retired Teachers Association (Letter)
  Forestry Commission (Weekly Wage Rates)
  Forestry Commission (Weekly Wage Rates)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
  Tenant Farmers (Tenure)
  Court Fines (Uniformity)
  Court Fines (Uniformity)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Appointments)
  Grant-Aided Schools (Grant)
  Grant-Aided Schools (Grant)
BOARD OF TRADE
  New Jobs (Blyth)
  New Jobs (Blyth)
  Factories (Employees)
  Factories (Employees)
  Third Lanark Athletic Club Ltd.
  Third Lanark Athletic Club Ltd.
AVIATION
  Gibraltar-London Air Tickets (Validity)
  Gibraltar-London Air Tickets (Validity)
WALES
  Roads
  Roads
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Lord O'Hagan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

THE GOVERNMENT AND HEREDITARY INSTITUTIONS
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their avowed intention to eliminate the hereditary basis of the House of Lords, it is their further intention to eliminate the hereditary basis of other institutions; and, if so, of which.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): No, my Lords.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may we take it that that Answer by the noble Earl the Leader of the House applies to that grandest of all our hereditary institutions, the Monarchy?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that if any proposal to reform the House of Lords imperilled or in any way impaired the strength of the Monarchy in this country, there is no member of the Government, and I am sure no Member of this House, who would touch such a proposal with a bargepole.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government recognise that the answer he has just given will give deep satisfaction throughout the country?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. It is seldom that one is able to say anything that is at once so popular and so true.

DEVALUATION AND LIABILITIES TO THE I.M.F.
2.37 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave 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 the additional amount of their liabilities in sterling to the International Monetary Fund in respect of their deposits and borrowings as at November 19, 1967, as a result of the alteration in the exchange rate.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the sterling equivalent of drawings outstanding which have to be repaid in foreign currency is increased by £90 million. In addition, we shall make a payment of £206 million to the Fund to restore the gold value of the Fund's sterling, which is largely held in the form of non-interest bearing notes.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, should I be right in assuming that the current instalment of this payment, which totals just £300 million, that has to be made to restore our pre-devaluation position, will have to be dealt with in the Budget, and presumably raised by taxation will have to be dealt with in the Estimate be tabled showing this and any other similar, new liability in sterling arising out of devaluation?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, there is no question of taxation. The £206 million is, in a sense, only a bookkeeping transaction.

DEVALUATION AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave 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 whether the loss on the value of savings from the debasement of the value of sterling will be allowable against any liability to capital gains tax.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be neither right nor practicable to single

523
out for special treatment a fall in the value of money due to devaluation as distinct from falls attributable to other factors. All tax liabilities are calculated in sterling, and a loss is allowed for capital gains tax purposes only if the cost in terms of sterling of the asset and of the expenses incidental to its acquisition and disposal exceeds the disposal price in terms of sterling.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, are we to understand that in respect of the International Monetary Fund Her Majesty's Government accept the view that compensation is payable to make good any loss due to devaluation?—because Governments have agreed upon this code of conduct, which seems to me to be elementary honesty. Will they now work out a system which does not discriminate against British citizens who lend their savings to the Government and in favour of foreign lenders? And, in view of what the Minister has said about the capital gains tax, has not devaluation made the capital gains tax unfair and unworkable? So NA/ill Her Majesty's Government take a new look at this tax in the light of what has happened?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the difference between our liability to the I.M.F. and our transactions in this country is that in the one case we are borrowing foreign currency and in the second case the transaction is entirely in terms of sterling. So far as discrimination is concerned, I am sure the noble Lord, whom I know to be a fair-minded person, would not wish to discriminate in favour of the capital gains taxpayer as against, say, the individual who puts his money in the Post Office Savings Bank.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, seeing that capital gains tax is charged on all properties, and that in the end properties all come to what one might call international prices, is it not possible, and possibly the Government's view, that by judicious devaluation from time to time they will ultimately get all the property in the country into their hands through the operation of capital gains tax? I asked them that question at the beginning, I think, and they said they would never do a wicked thing like that. Would
524
the noble Lord give me the Government's view on that point?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is crediting the Government with more far-sightedness than he himself possesses.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the present operation of the capital gains tax is simply this: that a loss shall be deemed to be a gain?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the capital gains tax is a tax levied upon one form of income, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, even if it were practicable, it would be wrong to enable the capital gains taxpayer to hedge, in this case, against inflation when the hedge is not available to the individual who, for instance, puts his money in the Post Office Savings Bank; or, indeed, to the wage-earner, who has only his wages to depend upon.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I agree with him about not discriminating between various forms of investment, but that I entirely disagree with him—as will, indeed, his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer—when he says that this has something to do with income? It is not a tax on income. It has nothing to do with income. What I am putting to the noble Lord is that if property maintains its real value, or even does not quite maintain it, but has a greater value in sterling as now defined, the owner of that property will have suffered a loss; but under existing legislation he will be deemed to have made a gain.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, first of all, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong if he assumes that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least, who levied this capital gains tax does not believe that gains made through capital transactions are income. He justified the capital gains tax on the basis that they were. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the Finance Act under which this tax is charged, he will see that the rate of capital gains tax for individuals is 30 per cent.; but that under the "alternative basis of charge" they can have half the gains in any year up to £5,000 charged under the same rate as their ordinary income tax liability.
LORD PARGITER: Would my noble friend say precisely why property should be sacrosanct in any tax system?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I endeavoured to point out that there is no basis in equity, or, indeed, in practice, for differentiating between the gains made through dealings in property and the gains made by putting in a hard week's work.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether a Monet, a Renoir or a Gauguin is included in capital gains?
LORD BESWICK: I think the noble Lord will remember the rule about commenting upon individual incomes.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, may I press this matter? I was asking only that the Government should consider a scheme under which those who put their money in the Post Office, or in any other form of Government savings, should be looked after as well as the International Monetary Fund look after foreign lenders to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would agree that the best method of looking after the interests of those who put their money in the Post Office Savings Bank, or any other form of investment, is to make, as nearly as possible, a stable currency. It is hoped that the recent step of devaluation will give us the opportunity to get back to a system of stable currency.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that investments come in the same category as property and that, and irrespective of who started it, so long as devaluation is taken into account in calculating capital gains then the tax is one on devaluation and not on capital gains?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can only say that I disagree with the noble Lord. It is quite impracticable to differentiate between—to use the phrase of a noble Lord—a debasement of the currency through devaluation and a debasement which takes places for other reasons.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he thinks that the best way to stop inflation and to prevent wage advances is for noble Lords
526
on the other side of the House to complain of the taxation of capital gains and property?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE: SLAUGHTER POLICY
2.45 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a different method can now be tried to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease with a view to cutting down the wasteful slaughter of animals which are free from the disease, can be kept under observation, and may never contract it.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, foot-and-mouth disease is one of the most infectious diseases found in animals and will spread rapidly to contact animals, and it is therefore necessary to slaughter both affected animals and the contacts as soon as possible, in order to prevent the build up of infection within the herd and so minimise the risk of spread to contiguous herds. The control of foot-and-mouth disease was last examined by the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, 1952–54. This Committee recommended, on economic grounds, that the slaughter policy should be continued. My right honourable friend has recently reaffirmed his belief in this policy and his intention to stamp out the present epidemic by slaughter, but has announced his arrangements for a supply of vaccine for use as a second line of defence should this become inevitable.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said, would he not agree that the great tragedy here is the slaughter of the healthy animals? Since, as so far, nothing which has been tried has been successful, why should we not try removing the healthy contacts, giving them a vaccine, isolating them and keeping them under strict supervision?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is conceivable that my noble friend who put down the Question in the first place wished to advance a somewhat similar

527
point of view. But the fact is, as I have said, that it is impossible to say that the contacts are not infected. There is an incubation period of up to ten days. If one allows that period to expire before deciding whether one has to slaughter, the viruses multiply and the risk of infection has been widely spread.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, as everything has so far failed, we should try giving the vaccine to a limited number of healthy animals and to isolate them under strict supervision? Why not try?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I respect the opinion of my noble friend, but I respect even more the letter recently published in The Times from the President of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Vice-President of the British Veterinary Association in which they compliment my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on his activities, and ask that this policy should be pursued with the maximum amount of public support.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the highly infectious nature of this disease is not due to the policy of slaughter that has been followed for the past fifty years?
LORD BESWICK: What I think we want to do is to get back to the position when this country was free of foot-and-mouth disease. It is quite impossible to guarantee complete freedom once one has recourse to a policy of vaccination.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, will the Minister please say why the Government have changed their policy of giving us two or three bulletins a day, and provide only one, which, under present conditions, seems insufficient?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer that. I suspect it is because those of my right honourable friend's staff who are concerned in this matter are very active indeed in trying to stamp out the disease.
LORD WISE: My Lords, at last I am able to put a supplementary question. Before I do that, I want to say that my sympathy goes out to the Minister in the
528
serious situation which has arisen. I would ask him quite plainly, straight away to consider another way of dealing with the outbreak. At the moment it seems only a question of slaughter and possibly vaccination. Is the Minister aware that it is possible to cure the disease, as was customary in my early farming days, by a simple method of isolation, clean bedding, care and attention and the application of Stockholm tar, disinfectant, ground rock-salt and home-made soft soap?
Why cannot the Minister stop this wholesale and seemingly futile slaughter of healthy animals, which, if the present rate goes on, may extend throughout the whole of the herds of Britain, and, if and when new cases arise, undertake an experiment on the lines I have suggested? It cannot make matters worse. A comparative examination of results might prove that I am right and he is wrong, and in that event we should have saved thousands of healthy, innocent animals and staved off the ruin of many farmers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may quote one extract from the letter to which I referred earlier—it was published last Friday—in which the joint signatories say:
"Everyone is disappointed that after comparative freedom from foot-and-mouth disease in recent years up to 1966—indeed complete freedom in 1963 and 1964—this major epidemic has arisen. Nevertheless official farming circles are fully in agreement with the policy which is being followed and the whole veterinary profession is behind it."
One respects the views of those like my noble friend Lord Wise, and others who, I have noticed, have written to the Press and who speak of old-fashioned remedies. But this matter has been considered very carefully by those most qualified to go into it, and their advice is to stick to the policy of slaughter, at any rate for the time being.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as Chairman of the Animal Virus Research Station I felt a little inhibited from joining in these questionings? Is the noble Lord aware that in the minds of most people in the farming world and, I think, most people in the scientific world there can be no doubt that the statement he has just made is the right one? There now appears to be a fair prospect of the

529
slaughter policy succeeding, and if that is so it is the best thing we could achieve. The right thing to do is to take a look at the whole policy after we have finished.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for what he has said.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that we have reached a point where if noble Lords wish to pursue this subject they will probably wish to do it in some other way. I know that there is no subject which in recent times has caused more understandable feeling than this, but we are going a long way beyond our usual limit for questions.

PROCEDURE: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC BILLS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it may be useful if I place on record an explanation of a new piece of procedural machinery, consequential upon one of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee which your Lordships agreed to last June. The Committee recommended that Public Bills which are not likely to be debated may be advanced in the Order Paper without consultation; but that if a debate arises on a Bill so advanced it shall be open to any noble Lord to move without notice that the debate be adjourned till later in the day or to another day. In order to make this recommendation workable, and to enable Peers to know which Bills have been so advanced in the Order Paper, it has been decided to mark Bills so advanced with a typographical device which I believe is known as a "paragraph sign." Your Lordships will see an example of this sign among the Notices and Orders published this morning, together with an explanatory rubric.
It is entirely in the discretion of the House whether or not to adjourn an unexpected debate on a Bill so advanced. No doubt your Lordships will be indulgent towards a speech which takes only a minute or two; but if the day's programme is a heavy one, it must be understood that any noble Lord is entirely within his rights in moving the adjournment of any debate arising on a Bill advanced in the Order Paper in this manner. If any noble
530
Lord should wish to speak on one of these Bills marked with a paragraph sign, he ought to give notice a day or two before to the Peer in charge of the Bill, who can then have it put back to its proper place as a debatable Bill in the Order Paper.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts 1920 to 1939, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946, the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, Part II of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, the Rent Act 1957 (except Section 16 thereof), the Rent Act 1965 (except Part III thereof) and other related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Re-registration of birth of person legitimated under this Act
" . The Registrar General for Scotland may, on production of such evidence as appears to him to be satisfactory, authorise at any time the re-registration of the birth of a person legitimated under this Act and such re-registration shall be effected in such manner and at such place as the Registrar General for Scotland may by regulation prescribe:
Provided that the Registrar General for Scotland shall not authorise the re-registration of the birth of any such person in any case where information with a view to obtaining such re-registration is not furnished to him by both parents."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we had some discussion as to the manner in which legitimacy should be registered under this Bill, and since I put down my Amendment I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which goes a long way—I say this straight away—to meet the type of point that I had in mind. I think the House accepts quite fully the simple principle of this Bill. The ordinary case is one in which, shall I say, a bachelor interferes with a married woman; a child is born; the marriage breaks up and the bachelor is then free to marry the mother and to legitimise the child. That is quite accepted by the House and I think is quite straightforward. But noble Lords worried on two points: first, regarding the rights of third parties, which may or may not arise, and, secondly, how the third parties could enforce their claims. Particularly would this be the case where there was any fraudulent entry.
There are rather difficult things to establish: first, the illegitimacy of the birth; secondly, the identity of the parents, and thirdly the fact of the marriage. The last may be quite easy to establish. There is no reference in this Bill to registration except in one particular which is not relevant to what I am saying, that is in regard to re-registering adopted children. With that exception, there is no suggestion of how registration should be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has explained to me how this is done, and broadly, it is in this way. When there is any doubt the matter has to be referred to the Sheriff who will make a decision, and I presume that it would be possible to appeal from that decision. I think that is satisfactory so far as it goes.
There are, however, two questions that I should like to ask of the noble Lord. First, is there any obligation to register? In the Bill there is no reference to any obligation, and I do not know whether it is merely a convenience, or an optional course. No doubt it is advisable, but there is no obligation at all to register as there would be in the case of a newborn child.
The second question I should like to ask is this. As well may happen, if at the time the marriage takes place the child is either of age or at least of years of
532
discretion, has he to be consulted before the birth is legitimated? I think that this might be a real point in certain cases, for instance, where a child has been brought up in a family, perhaps carries the name of that family and may wish to remain with the family or, alternatively, where he has no particular wish to be registered with the name of his father, who possibly may have a bad record.
I do not know whether there is any obligation or not. As I read the Bill, it simply states that where the parents of an illegitimate person marry that person shall be legitimated. I do not know whether the child will be entitled to consultation or not. Subject to these questions, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would recapitulate the method by which registration should be carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has been good enough to refer to the letter I sent him recently on the subject of this Amendment and he has invited me to recapitulate the circumstances which I describe in that letter. Section 20 of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 already makes provision for the re-registration of a birth in legitimate form. And the section contains provisions to ensure that the birth is only re-registered in this way by the Registrar General if he is presented with positive evidence of paternity of a nature laid down in the Act or, where this evidence is not available to him, if the sheriff court, after due inquiry into the circumstances, sanctions re-registration. This provision, which applies to legitimations under existing law, operates satisfactorily and is equally appropriate to legitimations under the Bill. No amendment of the law is necessary to apply it to legitimations under the Bill; so from that point of view, the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is unnecessary.
In practice, the Registrar General will authorise re-registration in any of the following circumstances: first, where both the natural father and the mother went to the registrar when the birth was registered in its original illegitimate form and both signed the register; secondly, where,

533
within twelve months of the birth, the natural father makes a statutory declaration acknowledging his paternity and the mother makes a confirmatory declaration; or, thirdly, where a decree of paternity has been granted by a competent court. If such evidence of paternity is not available, the Registrar General cannot authorise the re-registration of a birth following the marriage of the parents, except with the sanction of the sheriff, granted on the application of both parents or the survivor or, if both parents are dead, on an application by or on behalf of the child and after due inquiry into the circumstances.
The existing law, in Section 29 of the 1965 Act, is more restrictive than the noble Earl's proposed new clause, in that it specifies more clearly the circumstances in which the Registrar General may authorise re-registration and leaves less to his discretion. But the existing law is not so restrictive as the proposed new clause in that it does not require both parents to provide information at the time of re-registration. It is possible under the existing law for the birth of a legitimated child to be re-registered even if both parents are dead. I went on to say to the noble Earl that the existence of a re-registered birth certificate in legitimate form, although of evidential value, was in no way conclusive evidence of paternity. The absence of such a certificate would be a hurdle that any claim to legitimation by subsequent marriage would have to overcome before it could be upheld.
If I may refer to the questions which the noble Earl put, he asked me whether there was an obligation to re-register. No, there is no obligation. This is a right which is being conferred. There is not, as at birth, a duty to re-register. The birth has already been registered and the State's purposes have been accomplished. There is a right to re-register when the opportunity is available for the record to be changed from the registration of an illegitimate birth to re-registration as a legitimate birth. Whether or not people elect to take advantage of this right is a matter for themselves.
The question as to whether a child, if of mature age, has the right to oppose registration is not so easy. The position is that legitimation is effected by the law automatically on the subsequent marriage of the illegitimate child's parents,
534
and there is nothing that the child can do to stop that taking place. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will have accomplished that. If there is no dispute about whether either one or other of the married couple is in fact the parent of the child, his registration as an illegitimate person is incorrect and no-one has a right to stop the re-registration of the facts. But the child, or anyone else with an interest, could make representations to the Registrar General to the effect that one or other of the married couple was not his parent. In such a case, the Registrar General would have to set on foot due inquiry before deciding whether or not he puts the entry into the register of corrections. Such inquiry might well result in an application to the sheriff in order that he might inquire and, if appropriate, sanction the entry.
It does not make possible the position, to which the noble Earl referred, of a man who had been living happily with parents who had adopted him or brought him up and did not wish to be associated with his real father because he thought him a disreputable person. Unfortunately, the Bill does not permit him to admit that the man is his father but to oppose the fact being registered. The only course open to him is to prove that this disreputable person is in fact not his father.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am thinking of the case of an adopted child who is now to be legitimated. If a child has been adopted by law in a court, will the adopters be told that, if by any chance the parents of the child get married and the child is made legitimate, in spite of what has been arranged in court they will have to give up the child?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; adoption will not be affected. It is possible to adopt a legitimate child just as it is possible to adopt an illegitimate child, so that adoption would not be cancelled by the re-registration of the child as legitimate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the child is re-registered as legitimate, then for the first time the child will learn who its parents are. Is that not so?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it could be, but it is possible that the child may be re-registered without the child knowing of it. This comes back to the point to which the noble Earl referred.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one more question. If a couple have legally adopted a child who is called illegitimate, are they later to be told that because the father and mother have now married—it may be years after—and the child is legitimated it is lawful for the father and mother to insist on taking away the child from that couple who have adopted it legally?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a Bill to correct registry of what has now become a legitimate birth instead of an illegitimate birth. Adoption is an entirely different set of circumstances and has nothing to do with the registration of the child's birth.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I put another point?—be-cause I think it has only just occurred to my noble friend. It is the point that when people adopt the child of an unmarried mother the child will not be told who its parents are in order that the child shall not be worried and shall have the maximum protection. Now, as a result of this, that can no longer obtain, because the child will know its parentage.
LORD HUGHES: Not necessarily.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for a very useful statement, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Savings]:
3.11 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have no hostility to this Bill. I take issue with it only on one point. As a matter of fact, I look on it in a way as a piece of sentimental legislation, because it is going to legitimise only those children born where parents who are not in a position
536
to marry subsequently marry. That legitimates only a small portion of what I might call a large class. The object of the Bill is to take away from the child the stigma of illegitimacy. While I have not the smallest hostility to the Bill, I think this is rather a fanciful thing. One hundred and thirty years ago Pam did not find being illegitimate in the least an obstacle; and 900 years ago William the Conqueror found it no obstacle. I think it is only a piece of what I vulgarly call bourgeois Victorian prejudice which makes it a stain on a man.
If you look in an old edition of Who's Who you will find, luckily at the beginning of the alphabet, one "AB"; you will find more than half a column of his literary productions, and you will find the name of the lady he married. The next item is "CX", I will call him, "son of AX", not by B but by D. There are quite half a column of his productions. Then you go on. There are five entries, I think, and only the fifth is the son of the original gentleman and his lawful married wife. In the case of that family, being illegitimate has not been a bar to advancement of fortune or to reputation; and I do not think it is. That is merely to the general proposition.
On the last occasion, however, I pointed out that the Bill extends to the Peerage, and I think that is not a proper part of a Bill on this subject because the Crown has always very carefully defined the method of devolution of any Peerage granted, and this extends that order. It is perfectly true to say that it extends it by only very little; but, after all, the housemaid's baby was excused because it was a very little one, but it was none the less a baby. It is perfectly possible to point to a hypothetical case which is covered by this Bill and which extends the method of devolution of the Peerage concerned. I say that that is without precedent in the practice of your Lordships' House, and it ought to be carefully considered by your Lordships. It was for this very reason that I did not press this Amendment in the Committee stage.
Your Lordships have often taken quite extreme action in matters of Peerage. Those who read your Lordships' Standing Orders will remember that King Charles I created a certain Lord Banbury, and because he was an old man and a special friend of the King, the King asked

537
for him to be given precedence over all the other Peers that he had previously created. Your Lordships reacted with extreme violence and steadfastly refused to grant Lord Banbury the precedence asked for him by the King; and eventually Charles I promised that he would never do it again. Your Lordships established that point. But that had nothing to do with the terms of devolution of that Peerage.
There is another case. Queen Anne, wishing to make a little more interest in your Lordships' House, created the Duke of Hamilton (I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Selkirk sitting beside me, because he can correct me if anything I tell your Lordships is not right) Duke of Brandon. The House thereupon promptly refused to accept him as Duke of Brandon. They said that he was a Scotsman and a Scottish Peer, and he must come as a Representative Scottish Peer or not at all. And when he came as a Representative Scottish Peer, your Lordships refused to receive him because he was an English Duke, the Duke of Brandon. I think your Lordships were quite wrong. That is one of the reasons why I referred on the last occasion to your Lordships' 18th century manners. It was not for many years that that difficulty was overcome. And your Lordships maintained that position, in spite of the Duke of Argyll, who had an English Peerage, too. That was excused because he had that Peerage before the union of the Crowns in 1707.
But your Lordships still have never interfered with the Royal Prerogative, in so far as to extend it in a general fashion like this, especially without any particular authority to do so, and simply at the dictation of Government. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the last occasion said that he had been assured that the Royal Prerogative had not been touched in any way by this. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can give an expert opinion, and it may have great weight with your Lordships; but I do not think it can have weight against the facts. It is perfectly possible for me to show a hypothetical person who becomes under this Bill an heir to a Peerage and who, if this Bill did not pass, would not have done so but would have been excluded by the terms of that Peerage. That is an extension of the Royal Prerogative. That, I think, should not be done without a definite decision by your Lordships'
538
House for which your Lordships would be responsible.
It is true, too, that before the Bill leaves this House I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that Her Majesty has sent a Message to say that she will not put the Royal Prerogative in opposition to anything that your Lordships decide in this Bill. That, as your Lordships know, is purely permissive. It has happened on many occasions, and means merely that the Crown is submitting itself to the decision of Parliament in the matters affected. It does not dictate what that decision shall be.
There is another reason for rejecting the inclusion of Peerage in this Bill, and that is because your Lordships did not include it in the Bill affecting English Peerages. That may also seem a small point, but it is not without a certain amount of weight. In the first place, Scottish Peerages descend in a different manner from English Peerages. This will make the difference greater still. It is quite possible that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will say that we have always been in advance of England and he does not see why we should not keep that advantage and still remain in advance. To move from the same position is not necessarily to advance, and in this case I do not think it will be an advance. One thing we do not want to do is to increase the difference between the two countries more than we absolutely need, for this reason: it may be a very convenient thing to an individual in his personal family circumstances to come to Scotland and to try to acquire a residence there in order that those circumstances may be governed by Scottish law instead of by English law; but however convenient it may be for a person it is not a particularly reputable thing for the country as a whole or for the legal system of the country.
In this matter I am suffering front a certain disadvantage. In the old days your Lordships used to meet at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and after the last war, when we were asked whether we would retain the practice of meeting at 2.30 in the afternoon or go back to 4 o'clock, I said that although it would make my life very difficult we ought to go back to 4 o'clock. My reason for saying that was one which would be useful to me at this moment, because after 4 o'clock we get our Law Lord colleagues in this

539
House and I should have received the support of some of my Law Lord friends on this last point. I think both these points are worthy of your Lordships' consideration, and the first point is one which ought not to be decided upon by your Lordships other than by a Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Saltoun.)
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am in a little difficulty about this Amendment. I must confess that my sympathies are in favour of it because it is making a change in the law of Scotland in relation to the succession to Peerages. Our difficulty is this: always in Scottish law illegitimate children who have been legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their natural parents can succeed to Peerages. This often happened. In one case the King of Scotland succeeded to the Crown although he had been an illegitimate child but his parents had subsequently married, and from him our present Royal House is descended. So there is no question about that.
The difficulty is that in 1926 the English changed their law and approximated it to that of the rest of Europe, including Scotland, and an Amendment was inserted in identical terms to the Amendment now being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, which provided that nothing in that Act should affect the succession to an hereditary Peerage. So the English in 1926 thus created a very marked difference between the laws of England and the laws of Scotland, in that while all other illegitimate children born of unmarried parents who subsequently married could succeed to all the rights of legitimate children, that did not apply to the case of hereditary Peerages. But it always had applied in Scotland, and that has been the difference from 1926 to the present time. Then in 1959 the English proceeded to legitimise children who were born at a time when their parents were married to somebody else. I remember we had a lively debate about it in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke about the difficulties at school between Smith Major and Smith Minor
540
when they had both been born from different marriages of the same parents. At the time there was a great deal of feeling about it, which seems now to have subsided.
I am not objecting to this Bill bringing, the old law of Scotland—the first time we have changed this law of Scotland—into similarity with the law of England on this subject, but I would like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, exactly what sort of proof is required if someone who believes that he is the son of a man who is married to someone not his mother, and his mother is married to someone not his father, claims that he may be the heir to the Peerage of his putative father, who was not in fact his legal father at the time of his birth? I think that is an important point.
One point which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made clear is that this will not affect the right of heirs apparent, that is to say, children of the father, because the seniority does not take effect until the putative parents are subsequently married. So the adulterous birth will not cut out the original legitimate birth, even if the former is older, because his seniority dates from the time of the marriage. But he will cut out heirs presumptive, say a brother or a nephew, and as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has pointed out this might be a temptation to some ambitious young widow to marry a Peer and look after him in his old age, on the understanding that he would falsely declare that all her children already born were his children. I should like to know what standards of proof are required.
I would much prefer the law of Scotland to be left as it is and let the English do what they like, but now that we are going to alter the law of Scotland this is a real difficulty—whether we should introduce into this Bill the Amendment which the English carried in the 1926 Act, as well as the 1959 Act, that we should say that nothing in this Bill should affect the succession to hereditary Peerages. I feel a little uneasy about this matter, and I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has to say about it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hope I shall be able to remove the unease

541
which the noble Earl feels, although I am equally certain I shall not change in any way the opinions which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I have endeavoured to do so twice in letters, the only success attending my efforts being that the noble Lord arrived at the conclusion (which I must admit I share) that the offer of a meeting this morning should not be taken up, on the basis that he did not think it would be worth while.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, I came to that conclusion because I did not think we should get any further. It is always worth my while to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was talking in terms of concrete results rather than any other forms of satisfaction. But one of the reasons why I do not really have great hopes of converting the noble Lord at this late stage is because of the nature of the arguments he has put forward. At the last stage he put forward three reasons for amending the Bill, and he has now brought in four people in support—William the Conqueror, Lord Banbury, the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Oh no, he was not illegitimate—please!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, neither, so far as I am aware, was it suggested that Lord Banbury was illegitimate, but he was brought into the argument. The fourth person was the housemaid. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, correctly, he more or less implied that if certain things were good enough at the time of William the Conqueror it was not necessarily an advantage to have changed them in the interval. If your Lordships had accepted that argument frequently in the past, at least the Statute Book would not have needed so many Consolidation Acts in the interval.
I should like to go back to what was said in Committee stage, because I think that what both the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said and what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said makes it worth while and necessary that I should recapitulate the full situation. As I explained in Committee, the effect of Lord Saltoun's Amendment is to prevent per
542
sons who cannot be legitimated at present by the subsequent marriage of their parents from succeeding to dignities and titles of honour. I said then that the Amendment might have the further effect—and I want to stress the fact that I am not going beyond "might"—of preventing all persons who are legitimated by subsequent marriage in future, including those who can be legitimated under the present law, from succeeding to titles. This in fact is a change in the Scottish law with a vengeance, because it is going to stop something which, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pointed out, has been the law of Scotland for centuries.
The reason why I say that it might put the clock back all these years is because the noble Lord has adopted the wording from the Legitimacy Act 1959. The 1959 Act was an ordinary amending Act confining itself, so far as legitimation was concerned, to amending the existing law to extend legitimation to those persons who could not previously be legitimated because of the operation of the bar. The words in the 1959 Act were therefore appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that those to whom the Bill extended legitimation could not succeed to titles. But the present Bill, following the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission, is not an amending Bill; it is a codifying Bill. It restates and replaces all the main provisions of the existing Common Law on legitimation as well as amending the law in certain ways.
If your Lordships will look at Clause 1, you will see that it covers the whole law on legitimation, both the law relating to present legitimation and the extension of the law to legitimate those at present subject to the bar. If the noble Lord's Amendment is read with Clause 1, its effect may well be not to leave present legitimations to the existing law. The existing law is being absorbed into the present Bill; the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment might therefore be that it is held that persons who can be legitimated under present law, and whose legitimation will in future be under this Act, will not be able to succeed to title. It is, I submit to your Lordships, a possible ambiguity which could not be permitted to stand, and this is an added reason for the Government's not accepting the Amendment.

543
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, adduced three reasons in support of his Amendment. First, he said that the rights of heirs presumptive will be affected by the legitimation of persons who cannot at present be legitimated. Secondly, he said that the legitimation of such persons will open the door to fraud. Thirdly, he pointed out that the Bill might invade the Prerogative of the Sovereign. I gave my answer to the first of his points at Committee stage. I agree without hesitation that the rights of heirs presumptive will be affected by the legitimation of persons who cannot at present be legitimated. But the rights of heirs presumptive have always been affected by legitimation under the present law, by the legitimation of a son who becomes heir apparent. It is a general principle of the Bill that all children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents should for all purposes be treated similarly, whatever the circumstances at the time of their conception or birth, over which, of course, the child has no control. It seems to the Government that there is no more justification for discriminating between legitimated persons in the matter of titles than in any other area of succession. As I said in Committee, and as I have said to-day, it is not an act of the child which differs in the two cases, and I think it is fair that the children should be treated in the same way.
Lord Saltoun's second argument concerns the possibility of fraud. It would be possible, he said, for an elderly Peer who is none too honest to get himself a housekeeper and oust an heir presumptive by persuading a young widow to marry him and care for him on condition that he will acknowledge paternity of her son so that he will succeed to the title. The Government are satisfied that this is not a ground for discriminating against those who are legitimated under the Bill. To give the Government's reasons I must explain once again the safeguards against fraud and why the provisions of the Bill do not increase the exceedingly remote chances of such an attempted fraud succeeding. As I said in Committee, if the persons who are the parents of an illegitimate child subsequently marry each other legitimation is automatic on that marriage. But the Registrar General is not empowered to re-register a birth in legiti
544
mate form unless he is satisfied as to paternity; and this in practice means that if there is no entry relating to paternity in the original registration of the child's birth or in the Register of Corrections, or if there has been no finding of paternity by a competent court, re-registration is permitted only with the sanction of the sheriff after due inquiries.
Further, an entry in the Register or in a birth certificate is no more than evidence in its favour; there would be nothing to prevent a person from proving that an admission of paternity on which the entry is based is false. And, as your Lordships will know, the Lord Chancellor must be satisfied as to the succession to a Peerage before he issues a Writ of Summons. If he is not satisfied, stringent inquiries are made which involve the Lord Advocate and the Committee for Privileges. I have, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, written to him setting out in fuller details the safeguards which are provided; but I think I can assure your Lordships that they are such as to make the chances of success of the kind of fraud which he has described extremely remote indeed.
I pointed out to the noble Lord at the last stage that such an attempt at fraud is already a possibility under the present law; the Peer may marry an unmarried woman with a child—not his mistress, as the noble Lord understood it, but a woman with whom he has had no closer previous acquaintance than with the hypothetical widow of whom the noble Lord spoke. And if he were to, his chances of success, negligible at any time, are certainly greater than if he married a widow. The reason for this is that a child born during the widow's previous marriage is presumed by law to be the child of her husband; and this is an additional hurdle which would have to be overcome in attempting to establish the Peer's paternity. This hurdle would not exist if, under the existing law, he attempted the fraud by marrying an unmarried woman. I can therefore categorically state that there are adequate safeguards against such fraud and that the risks of fraud are not increased by the extension of legitimation in this Bill. If, therefore, any of your Lordships are looking for an ingenious way of finding a housekeeper, I do not suggest you are

545
influenced by what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, although I do not wish it to be read that finding a single woman with an illegitimate child is any easier a way of seeking to spite an heir presumptive whom you do not like.
Then there was the question of the Royal Prerogative. I informed the House that the Government had considered this point and we took the view that it did not infringe the Royal Prerogative. On reconsideration, however, we have come to the conclusion that, a doubt having been expressed, it would be safer to take the view that indirectly the Bill might affect the Prerogative. We have therefore acted on this view, and I am pleased to inform your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, predicted I would, that Her Majesty's consent will be signified at the appropriate stage.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having dealt at such length with the Amendments. Although I am in complete disagreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said, it seemed to me it would be completely unfair if I did not react to the complete sincerity with which he raised the point, and give him an answer which I hope will persuade your Lordships that the principle at stake in this matter is such that we are reasonable in declining to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has put forward. Even if it did not have the effect which we believe it is likely to have, by the act of putting the clock back several hundred years by removing a right from children who presently have it, we should still be of this opinion. That is an added reason for rejecting the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if no other noble Lord wishes to speak I should like to say a few words in reply. The
noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replied at great length to the speech I did not make, at any rate this afternoon. He expressed a fear that my Amendment would go too far and would alter the law of Scotland as it is at present. The wording of my Amendment is:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title."
The fact that the early part of this Bill recites what is the law at present surely does not repeal that law if, later on, we put into the law that "Nothing in this Act shall" alter the law as it stands at present. Surely that is a clear case? Otherwise, I should be in doubt, and I do not think there can be any doubt about that.
As I had hoped, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has brought the usual Royal and gracious Message, that Her Majesty is willing to abide by the decision of your Lordships' House. The question before us at this moment is, what is that decision to be?
My third argument was not touched upon by Lord Hughes at all, and it is one upon which my legal friends put most stress: that the Bill extends further the existing difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England with regard to peerage. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. As I was afraid would happen, we have not convinced one another. That does not affect my regard in other respects for Lord Hughes; but I am afraid we must differ on this.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Nunburnholme, L.

Amherst, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenway, L.

Rea, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Henley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

St. Oswald, L.

Beachamp, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brentford, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Byers, L.

Margadale, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Forbes, L.

Milverton, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Monsell, V.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hall, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hankey, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Balerno, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rowley, L.

Beaumont, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Selkirk, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Hunt, L.

Shannon, E.

Chorley, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Silkin, L.

Citrine, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sorensen, L.

Clwyd, L.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strang, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tayside, L.

Glasgow, E.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Haddington, E.

Raglan, L.

Williamson, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education
1.—(1) For every institution maintained by a local education authority, being either—

(a) a college for the training of teachers (in this section referred to as a college of education); or

(b) an institution, other than a college of education, providing full-time education pursuant to a scheme of further education approved under section 42 of the Education Act 1944,

there shall be an instrument (to be known as an instrument of government) providing for the constitution of a body of governors of the institution.
(2) The instrument of government for any such institution shall be made by order of the local education authority, and the body of governors to be constituted there under shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as that authority may determine.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the third "the" and insert "each separate". The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. I presume that the intention in subsection (1) of Clause 1 is that there should be a separate board of governors for each of the institutions covered by the Bill, but it did not seem to me clear that this was so. It might well have been the case under the Bill that one governing body would be sufficient for more than one institution. Therefore, the idea of this Amendment was to make it quite clear that each institution should have its own board of governors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("the") and insert ("each separate").—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It was rather assumed that the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment was exactly as he has already told the Committee; namely, to ensure that each institution has a separate board of governors. The Bill does not give the local education authorities the power to group two or more colleges of education under a single governing body, so in fact no Amendment is required to ensure this. It is the Secretary of State's intention that, as the Bill now provides, each college of education should have its own separate governing body. I should, however, tell noble Lords that it has been represented to my right honourable friend that the power to group two or more schools under one management conferred by Section 20 of the Education Act 1944 should be applied

549
to special schools, and that an analogous power should be applied to the grouping of purely local further education establishments performing a similar function for different parts of an authority's area, where the authority consider such grouping expedient and the Secretary of State approves it.
My right honourable friend is giving sympathetic consideration to these suggestions with a view to the possibility of moving appropriate Amendments at a later stage. He wishes me, however, to make it clear that the Government have no intention of conferring a power to group colleges of education, and that there is no suggestion that the power to group further education establishments should be wider than what is needed to meet the circumstances of purely local colleges, and then only on the initiative of the local education authority and with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I have given a somewhat longer explanation to the noble Lord than he might have considered necessary, in order that it should be recorded, and I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving that extremely lucid answer at some length. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that in a college of education these persons shall include the principal and representative members of the academic staff together with university representatives, members of the teaching profession and other persons with a concern for the training of teachers as full voting members."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows on what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill. If I may summarise what I then said, it was that the institutions of higher education covered by the Bill would not enjoy any real internal independence unless their boards of governors were fully representative in the sort of way envisaged by the Weaver Report, and unless they had freedom to choose their own clerks. The question of the clerk I leave aside, because I have no doubt that this comes
550
within the articles of government, and the articles, under subsection (3), are already subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. What I am concerned about is the board of governors which forms part of the instrument which, under subsection (2), is the responsibility of the local education authority alone.
Your Lordships will remember that I put forward a tentative suggestion on Second Reading that the instrument might also be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and the noble Baroness said that this would not in her opinion be appropriate. That is a view with which I have some sympathy. But I am still concerned about the colleges of education. It was recommended by the Robbins Committee that these colleges should be of full university status, and indeed their students are already working for Bachelor of Education degrees. But when it was decided by the Government that they should not enjoy full university status, it was at the same time said that they should enjoy the maximum amount of internal self-government, and it was to that end that the Weaver Committee was established. It is specifically to guarantee them what was promised to them, or what was recommended for them by the Weaver Report, that I have put down this Amendment.
The Weaver Report was a unanimous Report, and it was the Report of a Study Group on which were included all the relevant parties—the Department of Education and Science, the local education authorities and those who were teaching in the colleges of education. I am going no further than suggesting that in the case of colleges of education the constitution of the board of governors recommended in that unanimous Report should be put into the Bill. I think it is essential that these colleges should have the same independence in this way as, for example, the polytechnics have. In the case of the polytechnics there is no question. The Secretary of State, in his Notes for Guidance, asks authorities to include drafts of the proposed instrument and articles of government, so that he will have power to approve both the constitution of the board of governors and the articles. What I want to ensure is that the colleges of education are no worse off than that.
I have therefore put down in my Amendment the words taken straight from the Report of the Weaver Committee, dealing with the constitution of the governing body. I have added the last four words "as full voting members", because I feel sure that this was the intention of the Weaver Committee, although I do not think it was specifically expressed in the Report. But I believe that if those words were not included, it would be possible for a local education authority to establish a governing body on which the principal and representatives of the staff were included, but without full voting powers. That is the reason for adding those words at the end. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able either to accept this Amendment, or to give me some fairly definite assurance that the position of the colleges of education will be safeguarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I wish very briefly to support this Amendment. If I may speak from experience of voluntary colleges of education, I would say that this aspect has already been gone into very carefully in our negotiations with the Department over articles of government, and the principle, so far as they are concerned—certainly in the colleges I know—has been fully established. They have not always shown the same freedom from rigidity for which the noble Lord has pleaded in other cases, and which I hope they will still consider. But they have shown great understanding of this point, and very much to the profit of the colleges.
I should like very much to support what the noble Lord has said, not so much about the mere status of these colleges of education—this near-university status—but about the whole nature of life within them, which is very much of the same calibre. The size of these colleges to-day, the freedom of the students, the academic responsibility which is expected of them—this is something which I think can be properly achieved only within institutions which are themselves manifestly academic bodies, with great academic freedom in them. While the relationship of the universities and the
552
university representatives certainly speaks for itself, I should also like to endorse the other points which the noble Lord has made about members of the teaching profession and others outside, since their relationship with the students is so very important. I hope very much that this Amendment can be either accepted now or included in some other form.
4.6 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like, first of all, to assure the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that my right honourable friend is very concerned about the status of the colleges of education. Indeed, I think that on Second Reading I indicated that this was one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.
In setting up the Study Group on the Government of Colleges of Education, to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has referred, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science charged them with the task of striking the correct balance between the freedom which institutions of higher education should enjoy, and the social control which democratically elected representative bodies were required to exercise. I think noble Lords indicated, by their warm reception of the Bill at its Second Reading, their general approval of the unanimous recommendations at which, after long and friendly discussion, the Study Group arrived. These recommendations were designed to distribute responsibility between the different parties, and to give as much freedom to governing bodies and academic boards as was consistent with the inescapable duties of the local education authorities.
My right honourable friend the present Secretary of State does not think it necessary or desirable to alter the nice balance that was achieved by the Study Group, and to which this Bill is designed to give effect. This does not mean, as I explained on Second Reading, that he is not concerned to see that the several partners in this enterprise, including, of course, the local education authorities, between them bring it about that the colleges are governed in accordance not only with the letter of the Study Group's Report, but also with its spirit which they did their best to communicate in its last chapter, and by what the Secretary

553
of State commended as "its general tenor and liberal attitudes". The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred to this.
To lay down in the Bill the composition of the governing body of a college, or to make the instrument of government subject to the Secretary of State's formal approval, would not in his view improve the balance of interests that was achieved. I hope that, in the light of this explanation and of the fact that the authorities may be expected to act on the unanimous recommendation of the Study Group that the principal of the college of education and members of the academic staff should be members of the governing body, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will not wish to press an Amendment which the Government would feel bound to reject.
LORD ABERDARE: I certainly do not wish to press the Amendment. I am, however, still rather disturbed. It seemed to me that this particular balance, or this particular requirement, within the board of governors was a direct recommendation of the Weaver Report and that it would not really be upsetting any balance to put it into the Bill. But I appreciate what the noble Baroness has said. I should like time to study the matter further, and if we have to come back to it we will. But for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [British Standard Time]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I should point out that Amendment No. 1 pre-empts Amendment No. 2. If Amendment No. I is agreed to, I shall not call Amendment No. 2.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out, "(to be known as British standard time) shall be one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time", and insert "shall be Mid-European time (one hour in advance Greenwich mean time)". The noble Earl said: With the exception of one Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrier, the Amendments on this Committee stage of the Bill are confined solely to the matter of the name of the time it is proposed to adopt and of course, the Title of the Bill. The name of the time is surely a simple enough matter. As your Lordships know perfectly well, we have had up to this point, and we still have, two times in force. Since 1916 we have had Greenwich Mean Time, on the one hand, as our basic time, and we have had British Standard Time for a varying number of months in the year, on the other hand. This Bill seeks to do away with that and to extend British Summer Time throughout the winter. Obviously, we cannot continue to call it British Summer Time, so we must call it something else.
The effect of the Bill, as your Lordships also know, is simply to move us Eastwards from one time zone into another, so that we adopt the time for the zone immediately to our east, which is known as Mid European Time. That

555
name is known not only to the 35 countries that use it, but also to all the other countries in the world. I believe almost without exception, it has been for a long time part of the world's standard time system based on Greenwich. That, therefore, is the name of the time, and we presumably should use it, like everybody else. But we prefer not to, and the Bill proposes that we should call it British Standard Time.
There has been a great deal of argument and discussion on the matter, and I dare say that much of it has been quite entertaining. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us on Second Reading:
"More than a hundred different names were received from many sources, including Members of Parliament, the public and the Press. Two newspapers ran readers' competitions, and one of them chose 'British Standard Time' which was easily the most popular choice among the letters received, and this was the title chosen by my right honourable friend, after careful consideration of all the alternatives. It appears to be a general wish that the word 'British' should appear in the title…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1186.]
This is perfectly understandable, and we are entitled, if we choose, to give our own private name to this very public time, just as one would be entitled to own a dog which might be a pedigree bloodhound named, say, "Champion Thundercloud of Tillington", and call it "Spot". But in international behaviour this kind of thing is apt to look a little ridiculous, and also to be at times tiresome. If I may take a rather more close analogy, it is as though I were to join a club; shall I say, if I dare to, the Carlton Club, of which I am not a member. This might be my only club, and after my name in the reference books would appear the name, "Carlton Club". If I wished to go there by taxi, I would ask the taxi driver to take me to the Carlton Club. At home, it being my only club, if I was telling my wife where I was going I would simply say that I was going to "the Club"; in rather the same manner as our own time will be referred to domestically as, "the time".
But suppose that, for some rather curious, whimsical piece of vanity of my own, I preferred to call it, privately, "The Cork Club," and had those words engraved on my visiting card. This, I suspect, would cause a certain amount of irritation to the members of the Carlton
556
Club, and would induce the world at large to think that quite possibly I was not entirely right in the head. I do not think we really want to be thought either tiresome or not quite right in the head, and I think it would be a great deal more to the point if we used the same name as everybody else uses for this time, which is "Mid-European Time".
There is another point, slightly more subtle, if I may use the word, than this. This is a time that will affect every one of us from the cradle to the grave—perhaps not continuously from the cradle to the grave, but it is going to affect every man, woman and child throughout the months of winter, which is the only time of the year that this time will have effect. It will affect us all, in the sense that we get an hour's extra daylight in the evening, which will be agreeable; but I believe it will also bring a certain amount of hazard, possibly hardship and conceivably even death—I do not wish to be melodramatic, but this can happen—to three main groups of people, that is, schoolchildren going to school in the morning in the dark, motorists on the road going to work in the last hour before the dawn rather than the first hour after it, and chronic bronchitics and people with weak chests who will have to put up with an extra hour of darkness, cold and fog in the morning.
If this is to be so, it is a serious matter. I do not wish to exaggerate, and it is not a thing about which one should be flippant, but I think it is reasonable and just, to say the least, that we should say in the Bill exactly what it is that we are doing. We are not moving to some new, slightly whimsically-chosen form of British Standard Time. There is no point in clinging to the word "British" when in fact it is British no longer. I see very little object in trying to retain the initials "B.S.T." because they are the same as those which were used for "British Summer Time", as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, suggested. I might equally well, perhaps with rather more justification, and perhaps with a certain charm, call it, "Baron Stonham Time". But it is not: it is Mid-European Time. This, I submit, is its name; it should remain its name; and it is this that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("throughout") in line 7 and insert ("shall be

557
Mid-European time (one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time)").—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
4.17 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: As has been rightly pointed out by the Deputy Chairman, the effect of carrying this Amendment would be to exclude discussion of my own, and I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should now deploy the argument for my own. I think it will probably be for the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I think of the whole Committee, if we know the case for the two Amendments that are suggested. There are two new names suggested as alternatives to the one in the Bill. My noble friend behind me and I are agreed that the name in the Bill ought to go, and I think that each of us would agree that one or other of the two Amendments that we have put down should be adopted. I think they should both be considered.
I was a little astonished, on one minor point, that my noble friend called it Mid-European Time, because I thought that what most people call it, and what it is known as throughout the world, is Central European Time.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting him? This is quite likely a fault in my own research, which has not been carried far enough, but it has been carried out with the assistance of the Library and the Public Bill Office. I believe it is called Mid-European Time, but I am sure no one would complain greatly if that name were found to be wrong; and perhaps the matter could be adjusted by a small drafting Amendment at a later stage.
LORD CONESFORD: I entirely agree. Subject to that, I certainly support my noble friend as against the words at present in the Bill; and I think that, if his Amendment is not adopted, he will also probably support me in what I suggest.
I shall now give the case for my Amendment, which, it will be seen, is to change the name to "Advanced Greenwich Time". I want to show why the name in the Bill will not do, and why I think that the name I suggest is the best alternative. Since the Second Reading I have had the great advantage of a most helpful letter and memorandum
558
from Mr. D. H. Sadler, the President of the Royal Astronomical Society and the man named in the Preface of the Nautical Almanac as one of the two men under whose immediate supervision the Nautical Almanac is produced. I thought of reading to your Lordships the preface to the Nautical Almanac. It is the first time I have brought it into this House. It is a work of some fame and one with which I think the Home Office will be familiar—although I rather gather from a letter in the Press from my friend A. P. Herbert that the Home Office, although familiar with longitude, has not yet studied latitude.
Mr. Sadler, who has been good enough co help me in this way, was one of the four signatories to the letter from the representatives of the scientific interests concerned which was published in The Times on October 24 this year, the letter that has been mentioned previously in our debates. I will, if I may, quote just one sentence from that letter:
"However, we understand that the name British Standard Time is being considered: this is ambiguous, is likely to lead to confusion and misunderstanding and should be rejected as being, in our view, geographically inconsistent with the system of Standard Time lanes."
Mr. D. H. Sadler has also drawn up an admirable statement for the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society. It is headed "British Standard Time Bill 1967. Statement of the arguments against the use of the name British Standard Time", and is dated the 8th of last month. I take it that Her Majesty's Government have seen a copy of this document and have already studied it. If they do not accept one of the two Amendments that will be before them, then I hope they will say why they ignore the considered opinions of this scientific body. The document first sets out the background of the problem. Since 1884 the zero meridian of Greenwich has been recognised and used internationally. If I may, I will read a few sentences:
"As everyone knows the zero meridian from which longitudes are measured is that defined at the old Royal Observatory in Greenwich Park (actually by the Airy Transit Circle). It has been recognised and used internationally since 1884. That zero meridian defines Greenwich Mean Time which is used internationally for purposes of astronomy, navigation, surveying and other sciences; it is also known as Universal Time.

559
"For civil purposes it is desirable to use a measure of time differing from Greenwich Mean Time, by a constant time-difference, depending on longitude, in order that the alternating periods of day and night should fall at convenient clock times.
"For practical usage it is essential that there should be only a few well-defined such measures of time; and, arising from the International Time Conference of 1884, there is in existence a well-recognised and internationally adopted system of Standard Time Zones. There are 24 such Zones, centred on longitudes of multiples of 15°, with corresponding Zone Standard Times differing from Greenwich Mean Time by multiples of one hour."
So far I have been quoting from this document. The great objection to the name "British Standard Time" is the fact that, if this Bill is passed in its present form, there will be, in fact, in this country two standard times; that is to say, the standard time of the zone in which the Meridian of Greenwich is situated (that is to say, Greenwich Mean Time) and the standard time, one hour in advance, which is mentioned at present in the Bill. All round the globe Greenwich Mean Time is the world standard time for other countries and for us. To take one example, members of the Committee may be familiar with the form of announcement that the B.B.C. uses in its Overseas Services.
I think I had better now read the very important paragraph which sets out the case against the name given in the Bill, and it will be safer if I quote the actual words of the document. It says:
"Choice of name. The natural Standard Time for any country is that of the Zone Standard Time corresponding to the Standard Time Zone in which the country (or the bulk of the country) lies; the use of the combination of the name of the country and the word Standard for a Zone Standard Time that differs from that corresponding to the Standard Time Zone in which the country lies is unnatural and likely to lead to confusion. This is the nub of the argument against the name British Standard Time for permanent Summer Time; both logically and naturally British Standard Time should be identical with Greenwich Mean Time, and its use for a different measure of time is likely to cause confusion.
If British astronomy had not been honoured by the choice of the Greenwich meridian as the international zero of longitude, the time used in the British Isles would probably have been known as British Standard Time (instead of as Greenwich Mean Time) since this is the logical and obvious name."
In other words, the only reason that we call the time "Greenwich Mean
560
Time" instead of "British Standard Time" is the compliment internationally given to this country by the recognition of Greenwich as the Zero of Longitude. Otherwise, British Standard Time would have been the name always known; in fact, it is still so known for many purposes.
I hope the Committee will agree that we cannot ignore these objections of the men of science. Why should we decide a name by newspaper competition among laymen and not consult the learned societies? Is that the way by which Her Majesty's Government wish to show their sympathy and respect for science and technology: to ask innumerable bodies what should be the name, but not to ask any of the learned societies? I wonder what is the view of the Astronomer Royal. We have not been told. I believe that an effort to find out in another place did not succeed because he is a civil servant. That may be the reason. Another reason may be that his views may not be printable.
If the Committee reject, as I hope they will, the name chosen in the Bill, what should they put in its place? There are two names, as my noble friend has said, which already describe the time called in the Bill British Standard Time. They are British Summer Time and Central (or Mid-) European Time. The first, British Summer Time, is clearly now inappropriate; because, whatever else you think about the word "summer", it is not a very useful word to describe the winter. The second name is, I think, less desirable than the one that I have put forward. Mr. Sadler, in his letter to me, has made it quite clear that when he and his friends in the other learned societies wrote their letter to The Times they fully expected some notice would be taken of their objections to the name, British Standard Time and that they would be consulted.
May I read one paragraph of his letter? It says:
"We have deliberately avoided putting forward proposals for a name because this is largely a civil matter; however, we feel that we have the right to ask, as we did in the letter to The Times, for the exercise of the greatest care, implying that the appropriate authorities, both in Government and non-Governmental circles should be consulted. Although wide consultations were apparently made in respect of the principle of the change, there do not appear to have been any such

561
consultations in respect of the choice of name."
He then goes on to give the names that he thinks will be clear and do no harm. Of the names he puts forward I believe that far the best is the one which I now suggest—"Advanced Greenwich Time". It is short; it is accurate and it is free from confusion; and that is the name I would ask the Committee to adopt.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Very briefly I should like to support my noble friend Lord Conesford. I shall not take more than a minute or two. I have always disliked very much the thought that the name "Greenwich Mean time" should disappear. Even if it has to be altered, I greatly prefer my noble friend's Amendment to any other suggestion, because we are all used to the name and so are foreign countries. I am not myself either a mid or a central European. I do not know where one of them begins or the other one ends. I do know where Greenwich is, and I have even been there. I hope sincerely that we shall continue (I do not say this as an old Tory backwoodsman), for very obvious historical, scientific and other reasons, to adhere to the name "Greenwich".
LORD SOMERS: I must confess that I am a little astonished that the Government are so keen on retaining British nationality so far as time is concerned when we have been told, as regards the Common Market, so often that we are definitely part of Europe—a fact, I may say, about which I have the gravest doubts—and that the sooner we realise that the better. My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has suggested that we use the term which is used all over the rest of Europe, and I suggest, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Conesford, for whose views I always have the greatest respect, that it seems rather foolish in the circumstances to have two names for the same thing.
LORD AMPTHILL: I rise to support my noble friend firing on my port bow, and I do not agree with my noble friend's "broad" on my port bow. It is, I suppose, about 50 or 55 years since I had to use the Nautical Almanac professionally, and I must confess that I have not used it very much ever since. I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the
562
masterly use that he has made of scientific data, if that is the right word. Why I support his name "Advanced Greenwich Time" is that Greenwich Time is known right round the world, and it is used right round the world by air-lines, shipping and all the rest. I think it would be a disaster if we got rid of the word "Greenwich", for the same reasons that I, with others of my noble friends in this House, fought and voted against the last Administration to retain the word "Admiralty". For much the same reasons I think we should retain the word "Greenwich"; therefore I support my noble friend Lord Conesford.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I freely admit that I greatly prefer the Amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Conesford on both æsthetic and patriotic grounds.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does that mean that the noble Earl is withdrawing his Amendment?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: No, it does not. I was about to say that my personal prejudices are not what really count. It is a matter of confusion. I do not think that we should lessen the confusion by having two Greenwich Times—Advanced Greenwich Time and Greenwich Mean Time. We should increase it by inviting navigators and others to use both at once, as they might have to, and to convert one to the other in the course of a cruise or a flight. We should only invite confusion in the minds of unfortunate people visiting our shores from countries who use Mid-European Time. They would come to a country where they were told about some other time, only to be told, in brackets after that, "But it is just the same as your own." This seems to me unnecessary; and despite my feelings (I entirely sympathise and agree with both my noble friends in front of me: I oppose them only with the friendliest respect), I think we should be realists and admit that we are abandoning Greenwich Time and adopting Mid-European Time; and we should do well, for the sake of honesty of policy, plainness and lack of confusion, to make absolutely plain what it is we are up to.
4.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: As I understand the position, we are discussing the Amendment moved by the noble Earl,

563
Lord Cork and Orrery. He has not withdrawn it, and therefore it is incumbent on me to deal with it. The noble Earl indicated that if he does not carry the Committee with him on his Amendment he will then be in a position to support the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when he moves his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, indicated that both he and his noble friend would agree that one or other of the two names would be better than "British Standard". I submit first that this indicates somewhat less than 100 per cent. confidence of either of the noble Lords who have put down Amendments in the name they have submitted to the Committee. I would also point out that neither Amendment affects the principle of permanent Summer Time which is enshrined in the Bill and which is its main purpose. Both Amendments are confined to the question of what we should call the time.
Having said that, I shall be grateful if I may be allowed to go outside the strict terms of the Amendment to acknowledge an error which I made on Second Reading and which Sir Alan Herbert has pointed out in the columns of The Times in his own inimitable way. It will be recalled that I not only moved the Second Reading but I also wound up the debate. In the course of that debate every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the times of sunrise, and I ventured to suggest, not that the Home Secretary was superseding the Almighty but that the time of sunset would thereby be moved forward by one hour and the length of the time of daylight would not be affected; and that if people got up in the dark they would stand a better chance of going home in the light—which seemed to me not an unfair point to make. But in doing that, and having on my knee the times of the sunrise and sunset of about 14 European towns, including a number of British towns, I somewhat hurriedly worked out the hours of daylight in between. I regret that I made a mistake of one hour in one only—that was Rome. In this the gallant Knight is quite right, and I hope that I have made full and proper amends.
May I now move first to the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, because, though in principle
564
he suggested another name, I submit there is a difference between his Amendment and that of his noble friend; therefore I should like to deal with them separately. In the course of his speech the noble Earl said that we could use the same name as everyone else uses. I submit to him that that would be quite impossible, because there are several names widely used in Europe indicating the same system of time. A major difficulty in the noble Earl's Amendment is that it would virtually deprive the new time system of a name. That does not seem to be his intention. While his Amendment states what the time is to be, it does not say what it is to be called.
On Second Reading, the noble Earl said that in his view, whatever name is given to the new time system here, it will be called "Mid-European time". He has embodied that in his Amendment. That is an opinion, a perfectly fair and valid one, but it is an opinion that we do not share.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Am I not right in thinking (though I do not know whether the noble Lord will agree) that when one makes a statement on some subject and writes it in block capitals, that is the statement as one means it.
LORD STONHAM: I am considering the Amendment and its effect on the Bill if it were accepted. May I read to the noble Earl how this clause would read if his Amendment were accented?
"The time for general purposes in the United Kingdom shall be Mid-European time (one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time).…"
That does not say what it is to be called. It is what the time is to be. That is an important difficulty in the noble Earl's Amendment.
It is essential that the new time system should be given its own easily recognised statutory name, which can be adopted for general use. The name should be one that is generally acceptable, because obviously the new time cannot be known by more than one name. "Mid-European Time" is admittedly an alternative title, but the commonest term for the time system on the Continent is Central European Time, as the noble Lord said. This was considered with other titles embodying "Europe" and we rejected it, because

565
the change is being made not primarily to bring us in line with the countries using Central European Time, but to introduce a time system here which is best suited to the domestic interests of the country as a whole. It is identical, of course, with the Central European Standard, but there is understandably a considerable body of opinion in favour of including in the title the word "British".
I do not agree with the noble Earl in saying that we do not want to cling to "British" because it is British time no longer. One feature about the suggestions we received was that so many of them wanted "British" in the title. Moreover, in so far as people think of the Continental connection, it is with Western, not with Central or Mid Europe. To those noble Lords who are unaware of the technical reasons the reference which the noble Earl proposes tends to be somewhat puzzling, and to suggest an affinity to peoples in Europe with whom people here do not commonly feel such an affinity. Therefore, particularly in view of what he said a short while ago, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
I turn now to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. In view of the Powerful speech he made on behalf of the scientists and the support given to him by the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, may I point out that the Bill expressly reserves Greenwich. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 reads thus:
"( ) Nothing in this section affects the use of Greenwich mean time for purposes of astronomy, meteorology, navigation or other purposes for which that time is adopted by international usage, or the construction of any document referring to a point of time in connection with any of those purposes."
That conclusively and rightly reserves the term "Greenwich Mean Time" for all the international and scientific purposes for which it is commonly used and internationally famous.
I submit that the issue boils down to this. Does the use of the name "British Standard Time" inflict such an injury on the use of "Greenwich Mean Time" and such a confusion that it ought not to be used? Alternatively, if there is such a damage, is it right that the scientists should pre-empt a title and deny it to the vast mass of laymen who have
566
been consulted through their organisations about the title which is proposed? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, quoted at length from a letter from Mr. Sadler.
LORD CONESFORD: I quoted one paragraph from the letter and more extensively from the document, which I assume had also been sent to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD STONHAM: My information is that the document has not been sent to the Home Office. I inquired immediately, and we cannot trace having seen it. But Home Office officials went down to Hurstmonceux and discussed the name with Mr. Sadler. The fact that he does not agree with our choice does not mean that he was not given a chance to explain his views to us. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, rather reproached us for not having consulted the scientists, but in fact we consulted a universal agglomeration of interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, mentioned the airlines and shipping lines. Of course, we consulted them, and they supported our proposals and do not find any difficulty about them. The Admiralty do not find any difficulty about them. I do not want to mention all the many bodies which were consulted, but they include the British Airports Authority, British European Airways, the International Air Transport Association, the British Medical Association, the British National Export Council and the British Overseas Air Corporation. We consulted virtually everyone we could think of who has a direct interest in this matter. We have gone into this very thoroughly over a period of years. After all, we have had Summer Time now for over half a century. And the name we put before your Lordships certainly represents a consensus of strong support by a substantial majority.
I come now to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in which he suggests that instead of calling it British Standard Time we should call it Advanced Greenwich Time. I have in my hand a three-page list of all the names that were suggested and considered. They include Willett Time, Churchill Time, Civil Time, Mean Civil Time, Permanent Time, Advance Time, Common Time. Then we have no fewer than 14 names, all of which include

567
Greenwich: New Greenwich Mean Time, Greenwich Time, G.M.T.A.—that is Advanced—G.M.T.I., Greenwich Ante-Meridianal Time, Greenwich Global Time, Greenwich British Time, Green-which Plus Time, Greenwich Less One, Plus Greenwich, Greenwich Advanced Time, Advanced Greenwich Time and Advanced Meridian Time. We rejected all those names for the very reason, in effect, that the noble Lord has advanced in his Amendment—because we did not want to create confusion with Greenwich Mean Time. We submit that if we accepted the Amendment and called Permanent Summer Time Advanced Greenwich Time, then inevitably the public would call it Greenwich Time, without the "Advanced", and inevitably, in our view, it would create confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, advanced, as he always does, in a perfectly fair way, the argument that for scientific purposes the world is divided into 24 standard time zones, of which one has its centre on the meridian at Greenwich and the others are related to it, so that the Standard Time cannot be other than Greenwich Mean Time. That is the point the noble Lord made. But in ordinary usage the term carries precisely the right meaning for the purposes of this Bill—that is, British Standard Time—and we see no reason for abandoning it on technical or specialist objection. We do not accept that confusion would be caused by the use of "British Standard Time", because laymen are completely unaware of the specialist implication, while the specialists themselves are in no danger whatever of being misled, and there is this special exception in the Bill.
On this question of the name, we really have thought about it carefully. We have had the most extraordinary names: SATYR Time, Same All the Year Round, Orbitime, Orbitum, Orbitim, Solar Time, Solar Plus and Solextra. But of all these technical varieties the one that emerged as the outstanding choice was British Standard Time. There were more than five times as many people who suggested British Standard Time as the nearest number favouring any other choice—nearly six times as many as the others.
We have had a debate on two Amendments. Obviously, the noble Lords who moved them are not supremely confident
568
that theirs is the right choice. I hope that I have convinced them, and certainly I hope that I have convinced your Lordships, that the Amendment moved by the viable and should be withdrawn; and, noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, is not secondly, that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is not necessary, because the confusion which he alleges will not arise, because the scientists are already protected by the Bill, and because, if we accepted the Amendment, then clearly we should create confusion. I hope that in the light of those explanations the Amendments will be withdrawn.
4.55 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble Lord the Minister of State has made a sincere defence of the Government's choice of the words "British Standard Time" for the new time. He was, of course, perfectly right in saying that we are not discussing in either of these Amendments the main principle of the Bill. We are simply discussing the name, which is a fringe matter compared with the heart of the Bill, which says that we are to have time an hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time throughout the year. I thought, however, that the noble Lord was claiming a little too much when he sought to make the point that there was in the Amendments less than 100 per cent. support for any alternative. That may be so, and it is not surprising; but in the Amendments there is nil support for the Government's proposal. Both of these Amendments are quite clear in objecting to "British Standard Time".
I think the House would be grateful if the Minister of State would tell us a little more about this consensus among those who were consulted. He made two statements. He said that there was a general consensus in favour of "British Standard Time" when the Government consulted various bodies; and he also said that of the people who made suggestions five or six times as many suggested "British Standard Time" as suggested any other name. I do not pay very much regard here to the suggestions that came in, as it were, casually from members of the public. I doubt whether it is a good way of governing the country to invite people to write in and then to say that the majority of those who have bothered to write in are

569
probably correct. One would hardly do that in any other field.
What is more important, however, is the method by which the Government consulted those bodies of which the noble Lord gave us a list. Did they say: "We are suggesting "British Standard Time". Is that acceptable to you?" Or did they say: "Here is a number of varied suggestions;"—including "British Standard Time", "Advanced Greenwich Time", and perhaps several others—"which of these would you prefer?" There is a difference in those two methods of consultation, and it is only the second method which would really elicit from these authoritative bodies what they actually thought.
I myself in the Second Reading debate mentioned "Advanced Greenwich Time" as a name that was worth considering, and I was honoured when I found that my noble friend, Lord Conesford, had made it the subject of his Amendment. I certainly like his Amendment more than I like that of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. I do not wish to be tied up in advance to Europe by taking either "Central European Time" or "Mid-European Time" for the purposes of this Bill; and I was not convinced by my noble friend's argument that it would be confusing to tourists if we had a different name in this country. Indeed, I would invite him and other noble Lords to consider whether when they have travelled to the Continent they have been confused by not knowing the name of the time under which they were living. My own concern is simply to find out whether the time in France or in Germany or wherever I am going is the same as in Britain or an hour different. What they choose to call it seems to me to be a matter of complete indifference, so far as the interests of tourists are concerned. If there were any difficulty, I am sure it would be quickly overcome by tourists from the Continent visiting this country.
I think we should probe a little more carefully into the objection of the scientists. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that "British Standard Time" was acceptable broadly to all except people who had a technical or specialist objection. I confess I was a little surprised to hear this used as an argument on behalf of a Government who have prided
570
themselves on being the Government who really take science seriously. I suggest most strongly to your Lordships that we ought not to dismiss the opinion of the scientists merely on the ground that they are a relatively small group of people who talk their own language; or indeed on any other ground, for example, the further ground given by the noble Lord, that the name of "Greenwich Mean Time" will after all be preserved in subsection (2) of Clause 1 for scientific purposes.
I cannot see that this is a subject into which Party philosophy enters at all. I have been a Party politician most of my life, and though I will not challenge comparison with some of your Lordships in the understanding of Party philosophy it appears to me that one could be a good Socialist, a good Conservative, a good Liberal—or indeed a good Communist—and take whatever view one wished to take of this question without being untrue to one's Party. Perhaps I ought to have omitted the Communists from that statement: they perceive deviationism more quickly than the rest of us. But I confess that I see considerable sentimental attraction—and indeed I would venture to say patriotic attraction—in retaining the word "Greenwich", which is now known throughout the world; and I find it quite impossible to believe that any confusion would be caused in any quarters that matter if we were to use a different adjective in this case and call it "Advanced Greenwich Time".
I am simply expressing my personal views. I would not dare to urge my noble friends to vote in one direction or another, if either of these Amendments comes to a vote, but I think the arguments against "British Standard Time" are somewhat stronger than the Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, allowed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to make one small point. "British Standard Time" is bound to be abbreviated to B.S.T. If we ever have, as we did during the last war, what was then called "Double Summer Time" this would presumably be called "British Summer Time", as it would then be one hour in advance. That also would be abbreviated to "B.S.T." and I think it would cause confusion in timetables. Therefore I think it would be desirable

571
to have a word in the middle which did not begin with "S". Other than that, I am rather impressed by the name "British Standrad Time". I think it rings rather better than the alternatives.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder if the Minister is able to say whether anyone in France talks about "French Standard Time"? Do the Portuguese talk about "Portuguese Standard Time"? Do any of the countries of Western Europe use the name of their country in the official description of the time that they use? If none of them do, why is Britain being invited to be so quaintly nationalistic in this particular context?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just said, may I say that usually people will call things by the name they prefer, whatever an Act of Parliament says. Therefore while I am somewhat comforted by Lord Stonham's reply and what he said about my own personal view, I object to the loss of the word "Greenwich". I support my noble friend Lord Conesford, because I like to use the words that people know, such as "Greenwich". We all know where it is and we are not just guided, as in "The Hunting of the Snark". In that regard I think the Bellman's remarks were good, when he said:
"What's the use of Mercators, North Poles or Equators,
Tropic zones and Meridian lines?',
So the Bellman would cry; and the crew would reply,
'They are merely conventional signs'."
I am saying it from memory, and I hope I have got it right. At any rate, people will be guided by using the words, sometimes short and sometimes even obscene, but nevertheless the words of which they know the meaning.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I want to say a few words, but one thing I shall not say is that it is now 5.7 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time. In point of fact we do not use the words "Greenwich Mean Time" or any other reference except when we change our watches. The ordinary person who travels changes his watch to Greenwich Time, and under this Bill he will change it to whatever name
572
we give and then he will use the appropriate words. But on no other occasion, unless you are a navigator or an air pilot, do you use expressions like "Greenwich Mean Time". We must legislate for the greatest convenience of the greatest number of people. There will be Americans who will come to Europe and they will alter their watches to Central European Time, and they will keep their watches at that time unless they go to Russia. Likewise Russians and Asiatics coming from the East will change their watches to Central European Time, I suppose, when they cross the Iron Curtain, or wherever it may be. But surely for the convenience of those who are doing trade with us and who are the only people, other than the experts, who will use any description of the time, we should use what is most convenient for them and for us.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: There is a great deal to be said for convenience; there is very little indeed to be said for showing complete contempt for scientific opinion. The scientists who have stated their objections have not done so because they think scientists are going to be confused. They have pointed out the real dangers of confusion, and they have done so in arguments that I endeavoured to repeat. Of course the word that causes the trouble is the word "Standard", because it is already used, and used frequently, in connection with standard time zones, and to make people living in the standard time zone of Greenwich say "Standard Time" when they do not mean Greenwich Time is to breed confusion.
We were not told, in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, what the Astronomer Royal thought about all this. I do not blame him for not telling us, though I think his omission was noticeable. My reason for putting down this Amendment is that I treat scientists and scientific opinion seriously. I think it would be a terrible insult to scientific and technological opinion if the Government settled the matter by a newspaper competition among laymen, and decided to consider the convenience of the large body of people who were consulted, but took no notice whatever of the considered opinion of the scientists. I do respect their opinion.

573
I believe that the name "Advanced Greenwich Time" will be free from confusion. It has many advantages and is much better than the name at present appearing in the Bill. The noble Lord read out a whole series of names that have been suggested, some of an idiocy that showed near-genius in the minds of those inventing them. But this suggestion of Advanced Greenwich Time is not ridiculous in any way, and I hope that the Committee will support it.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: May I ask the noble Lord what do you do with the clocks when you go to Advanced Greenwich Time? Do you put them on or back?
LORD CONESFORD: I should have thought the experience of a lifetime would have told the noble and gallant Lord the answer to that. If you want to know the time—
LORD STONHAM: Ask a policeman.
LORD CONESFORD: When you advance the time you put it on. I am using the expression in the Bill as drafted, "one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time". Is it now clear to the noble Lord?
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: You put the clock on an hour?
LORD CONESFORD: Yes.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: If you change the meeting of the House of Lords from three o'clock to two o'clock you advance the time of the meeting by an hour. That is the confusion.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I said at the outset of this debate that it should be simple. It evidently is not. I am not altogether surprised. I will be very brief. I have the impression that only the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself grasped the central point of my Amendment. Even the noble Lord has confused it and turned it upside down by complaining about it. This clause is a clause about what we are going to do
with our time. We are going to put the clocks on: we are going to put our clocks one hour forward. This is a statement of fact. This is what the Bill says. There is no necessity under this clause to say what name we are going to give to this time. The time, so far as we are concerned, is the time.
LORD STONHAM: I must correct the noble Earl. The clause reads:
"The time for general purposes in the United Kingdom (to be known as British standard time) …"
and so on. He proposes to delete those words, and that is why I said he was not calling it anything.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Yes; I agree with that; it is not emphasised but thrown away in a bracket, as it were. I find it difficult to accept the noble Lord's contention that the clause without these words is not viable. It still remains a statement that we shall be using Mid-European Time. This is a perfectly good statement of truth. It is what we shall be using and the statement is quite truthful on the basis of fact.
I wish to exonerate myself entirely in the eyes of my noble friend Lord Conesford from any suggestion of disrespect to scientists. I do not think anybody has greater respect, or even greater respect for the Nautical Almanac, which even I have used, although I do not think I could now. This is a specialised field. I do not think that scientists enter into it very closely: they have their own language and departments. There is no reason why 50 million of us should be guided by something of convenience for scientists alone. The Bill says that we are going to have a particular time. This is a final statement. There is no confusion about it. We are going to change to Mid-European Time, and that is it.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Albemarle, E.

Craigmyle, L. [Teller.]

Iddesleigh, E.

Audley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Killearn, L.

Barrington, V.

Faringdon, L.

Monson, L.

Byers, L.

Forbes, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Ogmore, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Rea, L.

Somers, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monsell, V.

Addison, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Moyle, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fulton, L.

Newton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gage, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Atholl, D.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Pargiter, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Bourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rhodes, L.

Bowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Heycock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Buckton, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Sandys, L.

Burden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Segal, L.

Caccia, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Cawley, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonham, L.

Citrine, L.

Kennet, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strabolgi, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Douglas of Cleveland, L.

Latham, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Effingham, E.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Falkland, V.

McLeavy, L.

Tayside, L.

Ferrier, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fiske, L.

Maelor, L.

Williamson, L.

Fleck, L.

Merthyr, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD CONESFORD: We have already discussed my Amendment. I therefore do not wish to make another speech. I beg formally to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("British Standard") and insert ("Advanced Greenwich").—(Lord Conesford.)
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49 Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Inglewood, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Killearn, L.

Audley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Maelor, L.

Balerno, L.

Faringdon, L,

Monsell, V.

Barrington, V.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bourne, L.

Forbes, L.

Oakshott, L.

Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rowallan, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gage, V.

St. Just, L.

Buckton, L.

Goschen, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Salisbury, M.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hall, V.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ilford, L,

Stuart of Findhorn, V. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Greenway, L.

Raglan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Atholl, D.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Caccia, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stow Hill, L.

Citrine, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Merthyr, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Fleck, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Moyle, L.

Tayside, L.

Fulton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Teynham, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Phillips, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, in subsection (1), after "document" to insert "except any contract for the supply of electricity". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is perhaps on a different plane from the one we have just discussed. Nevertheless, it raises a matter of principle, there may even be in it a matter of law, and it certainly is of considerable importance to the public. As the Committee will be aware, I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and I have had a substantial "fan mail" as a result. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who said that one advantage of the Bill is that it will bring to an end the bi-annual crop of complaints, that I am afraid that they may not merely be bi-annual but, if this Bill becomes law, will last throughout the winter. However, your Lordships having given the Bill a Second Reading, it is our business to improve it wherever we can and to make it less unbearable to the public.
The object of my Amendment is, first, that if contracts for the supply of off-peak electrical power are affected by the Bill then such contracts will be excepted from the terms of the Bill. Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the fact that tens of thousands of contracts are going to be affected unilaterally, if indeed the Bill is intended to alter the terms of contracts already entered into by the public for the supply of off-peak electricity. I have my own paper here. It is not a
578
contract but is a statement of terms, and it clearly says:
"The hours quoted above are Greenwich Mean Time",
and so on.
In many cases it is fair to say that for these contracts to be frustrated or altered unilaterally may be markedly to the disadvantage of consumers. If I can help the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I can accept straight away—I think we can all accept—that this extra hour is an important matter in the overall load pattern of the supply boards. Here we are chiefly concerned with thermal storage type apparatus, and even in regard to domestic heating I am prepared to say that the Bill will have little effect on the convenience of thermal storage type domestic space heating in the southern part of the country. But it is more than possible that this will be a very important alteration in the colder North.
Again in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, we must accept that in terms of the new time the hours of supply in the evening will be an hour earlier as the hours of supply in the morning will also be an hour earlier. But apart from domestic space heating, what about horticulture, farming, industry, office accommodation, retailers and the like, many of whom use off-peak power and thermal storage apparatus, sometimes of a very complex and expensive nature, for their space heating? I should like to know how such consumers are going to be treated, if they are indeed affected by this Bill. I think it is as well to remember that off-peak tariffs have risen

579
sharply since the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I were instrumental in getting thermal storage equipment made available for domestic use. My tariff has increased by 50 per cent. in five years.
The questions that I have in my mind are these. How are off-peak contracts going to be affected by the Bill? In other words, will the passage of this enactment then and there alter electricity contracts unilaterally? Have consumer councils been consulted and, if not, will they be? If the hours of supply are unilaterally so altered, will rates be reduced to compensate for adjustments which may be necessary to equipment, or indeed for the frustration of the contract? In view of the widely varying conditions of daylight and cold in the winter in the different parts of the country, will different Boards offer different off-peak tariffs to their consumers?
That is all I have to say at this stage. I should be very grateful if the Minister could answer these points before I decide whether or not to press my Amendment. I can say now that in view of the lateness of the hour I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, but if the noble Lord's answers do not quite clear up my worries I contemplate putting something down at a later stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("document") insert ("except any contract for the supply of electricity").—(Lord Ferrier.)
5.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord's interest in and knowledge of this matter are well known, and I am not surprised that he has received a substantial fan-mail. But I am bound to say, and I hope I can prove it to him, that I think he is expressing concern over a matter about which there is no real need for concern. First of all, I am obliged to deal with the Amendment as an Amendment and to point out certain defects, so that even if I do not satisfy him on the question of principle I can at least show that the Amendment itself would not be such as your Lordships could be expected to support.
The noble Lord has made it quite clear in his speech that his object is to prevent Electricity Boards from revising the
580
terms of their off-peak electricity tariffs, and any special agreements with consumers, to reflect the change to British Standard Time. The actual effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is uncertain, because nothing is applied in place of British Standard Time. In his speech the noble Lord assumed that if British Standard Time were not there, or if electricity agreements were excepted from the purposes of the Bill, then Greenwich Mean Time would take its place. But the Amendment does not achieve that. If the noble Lord looks at the Bill and at one of the repeals he will see that the Statutes (Definition of Time) Act 1880 is to be repealed in toto. Therefore, once this Bill becomes an Act the statutory recognition of Greenwich Mean Time will be confined to the matters dealt with in subsection (2) of Clause 2, relating to scientific matters. So much for the technical aspect of the Amendment.
With respect, I do not think that the Amendment, even if it were viable, would in any event achieve any sensible object, because it says merely that where a contract for the supply of electricity refers to a specific point of time the rule in the Act that this should mean British Standard Time is not to apply—that is, not to apply to electricity contracts. It thus leaves completely obscure what system of time is to apply. The Amendment would make sense only if one knew in what connection a point of time was going to be mentioned in a contract, and there is nothing in the Amendment to show that. The contract might say that electricity should cost less between certain hours, or that heat should be stored between certain hours, or even that meters should be read between certain hours. But it is useless to make a general provision of this kind without suggesting how it would apply.
As I understand the principle of the noble Lord's objective, which I think is misconceived, it is apparently that electricity storage heaters should continue to store heat up to the same time in the morning relative to sunrise as they do in winter now, though up to one hour later by the clock under British Standard Time; that is, up to 8 or 8.30 a.m. instead of 7 or 7.30 a.m., or in the South of Scotland up to 9 or 9.30 a.m., instead of 8 or 8.30 a.m. But the heaters give off the greatest amount of heat at the time

581
when storage ceases, and thereafter continue to lose heat gradually throughout the day. So for warmth of rising on dark winter mornings it is, if anything, preferable that storage should cease at 7 or 7.30 a.m., or 8 or 8.30 a.m. in the South of Scotland, rather than one hour later. The gain would come from the stored heat lasting longer into the day, when under British Standard Time it would, if anything, be less needed. But the whole justification for the special tariff for these heaters is that they use electricity outside the peak periods, as the noble Lord and I have made clear on previous occasions, and the additional hour of storage in the morning which is contemplated by the Amendment would begin to overlap the morning peak, and probably would not be justified on economic grounds.
There are other quite strong objections to operating with electricity contracts in the way the noble Lord proposes. I think that these are the crux of the objection, and the reason why the Amendment is not necessary, because the precise terms of tariffs and contracts are essentially commercial matters for the Electricity Boards and their customers, the consumers, which they should settle in the light of their circumstances. It is not a suitable matter for legislation. There is nothing to prevent the tariff for the special rate being varied similarly if this is necessary. There is plenty of warning. It is a matter for the suppliers and the customers to settle between themselves. They must agree, in individual contracts, when things in question are to happen, and then frame their agreements accordingly. The Amendment is wrong, since it operates only on a provision which applies in the absence of a contrary intention, so that its effect could be immediately circumvented, if it were accepted, because a contract for the supply of electricity can be varied from one quarter to another, from quarter to quarter. In any case, the existing contracts, when extending into the period of Summer Time, refer to British Summer Time, and will therefore become inaccurate unless they are amended to accord with the Bill.
In one sentence, the argument is this. There is in my view nothing for the noble Lord to fear. There cannot be any question of unilateral alteration of contracts.
582
It must be by agreement between the Boards and their customers, and unquestionably the Boards and the customers, working together, will be able to decide when are the best times, talking about time on the watch as it will then be, to have the heat stored.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me on one further point. As I understand the situation, the Electricity Boards have their hands to some extent tied as to the periods when they can provide off-peak tariffs, because they have peaks which depend upon two things: one, the time when people get up and cook and go to bed, and the other the time at which it gets dark and it gets light. They can supply cheap electricity at the non-peak period in between, and to this, of course, they are tied. I know that they do their best to be fair to the customer and to give a good bargain, but that is the basic situation in the electricity industry.
The customer may have installed equipment for a specific purpose, and in the past he has done so upon the basis that it was going to get dark and light at a given time, which has always been, since memory ran (except, perhaps, during the war), the time when it did get dark and get light. I do not know that it is a matter only of those with thermal storage in their houses. I wonder about horticulturists. They may have lights which go on in the middle of the night to make the flowers grow more quickly; and it may be that farmers have equipment which turns on the light in the middle of the night to make the chickens think that it is another day. For all I know, they may have equipment—and quite expensive equipment—which has been installed upon the basis that cheap electricity will be available between certain times which are related to the time it gets dark and the time it gets light. That relationship is now going to be changed, and for all I know it might make a difference to the process which is being carried out by that horticulturist or by that farmer. Has the noble Lord made any inquiries on this point to find out whether there are people whose actual processes will be upset by this, and whose equipment has been installed upon the basis which has hitherto prevailed and which will be made invalid

583
by this Bill? If he has not, it might be worth while finding out about this, because if it is true that there are such cases then I can foresee hardship resulting.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, wish to add anything before I reply to the noble Viscount?
LORD FERRIER: I was going to say something because I owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount who has just sat down for saying so clearly what I have had in mind. Perhaps it would help the noble Lord if I built up on what the noble Viscount has said in replying to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. First of all, as to the point of time, the point of time is mentioned in the contract. Here it is—A, B, C and D tariffs; 7 o'clock to 7 o'clock, 12.30 to 3.30 or whatever it is. There are the points of time, and there is the clause saying, "Greenwich Mean Time". So, if I have done nothing else, I have succeeded in drawing attention to this very tricky matter which the noble Viscount has developed. It means that apparatus which has been installed will not work in the same way as it did when Greenwich Mean Time, which is the basis of the contract, was directly related to hours of sunrise and sunset.
In regard to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I might say that my fan-mail concerned general objection to the Bill as a whole. I think that very few people, including a large number of your Lordships, could "tumble", from my Amendment, to what I was getting at. We shall hear much more about it now, I think, than we have done hitherto, because I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that this is a very tricky matter. The point of time is mentioned in the contracts, and processes will be upset. I can assure the noble Lord that they will be upset, because, after all, it means that the off-peak heat will go off one hour more before dawn, which, as I pointed out on Second Reading, is, in Inverness at the end of December, at 9.57 a.m.
There is one point that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned in regard to the times of sunset. It is most interesting to study the times of sunset in the North,
584
because if you look at the time of sunset in December you find that, as between December 1 and December 31, there is a difference of two minutes, whereas in the case of sunrise there is a difference of 27 minutes. That is why, in all that I said on Second Reading and say now, I refer to sunrise as the most important matter in regard to off-peak tariffs.
I said in my speech that I appreciated the noble Lord's point that if these electricity supply contracts are to remain at Greenwich Mean Time then the load will impinge upon the overall load curve of the Board; and I am very glad that the noble Lord mentioned customers. This was a word which the noble Viscount also used; and it is in terms of the customer's position that I speak as emphatically as I can. I feel that we are too used to accepting that these Boards of the nationalised industries, after consulting their consultative committees (which are, I regret to say, pretty ineffective sometimes), can dictate to consumers what they are to have. That is why I moved this Amendment, and that is why I made my speech. I believe that if the apparatus which they have installed is going to be interfered with, in terms of its effectiveness, by this Bill, then there must be a revision of the tariffs, of the hours and of the terms under which such consumers have hitherto been supplied.
5.58 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has just said, and that is the crux of the matter. But perhaps I may now deal with the points put by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—and I join with his noble friend in thanking him for putting them so lucidly. The noble Viscount asked me whether we had made any inquiries and whether I had encountered any difficulties of the kind which he instanced; for example, of the poultry keeper wanting to have the lights on at night to encourage his hens, or of the horticulturist also wanting lights on at night. The answer is that I have not had any such difficulties brought to my notice. I am not aware of any of those points having been raised by the organisations representing horticulturists or farmers.
I would point out, however, that we are at present dealing with a Bill which will come into operation on October 27

585
next year. Meanwhile, for the first time, under the Summer Time Order which your Lordships agreed a few months back, we shall have Summer Time starting early in February next year and going on until October 27, the day on which this Bill will come into operation. In other words, we have put forward a measure before Parliament which would have, as it were, the effect of this Bill on time for the whole period of next year except for about six weeks at the beginning of the year and about nine weeks at the end of it. The February period, at least, will be likely to be a period of acute cold in many parts of the country, and certainly in many parts of the country the darkness in the morning will be that much later; but, even so, we have not had a single objection. There were no objections of this kind made when we considered that Order, although we had quite a debate on it.
As the noble Viscount will remember, his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford put forward points on behalf of agriculture and asked me for an assurance (which I was able to give him) that in spite of the later hours of darkness in the morning in the winter, it was thought nevertheless that we had enough provision of electricity to carry out the additional load at that peak hour. We have not had these difficulties put to us; and I should have thought that had there been a difficulty of that kind it would have shown itself by now. I cannot answer for individual time clocks. There are many mechanisms which operate by electric time clocks. One advantage of permanent Summer Time, or British Standard Time, will be that there will not be the need as there is at present during the course of the year to alter those clocks.
That difficulty apart, I want to come to the general point of off-peak periods. The only difference which this Bill can make to off-peak periods is that the off-peak time could be, other things being equal, one hour later in the morning and one hour later in the evening. If, for example, the peak load at the moment is 8 a.m. by current time, then under the Bill it would become 9 a.m. by current time and therefore the off-peak period must be advanced one hour because it is in the morning that it is darker later.
586
The noble Viscount does not seem to be following me.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am not sure whether this is altogether true. It seems to me that there may be a different sort of peak, because people will have to get up at a time which, in relation to the period of darkness which is continuing in front of them, will affect their habits. In the winter different lights will be put on by different people doing different things with electricity from what they do now. I doubt whether there will be a complete shift in the peak, as the noble Lord indicated.
LORD STONHAM: My assumption is that the things people are doing at 8 o'clock by current time now they will be doing at 9 o'clock in the future.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STONHAM: The off-peak period will go forward; they will be getting up at 9 o'clock by the sun. I am not making an issue of this; I am trying to say that, broadly speaking and unless people change their habits, in the spectrum of the 24 hours starting from the morning it is likely that the peaks, both of the morning and of the evening, will shift forward one hour in relation to the sun. It seems likely that the off-peaks will move in relation to the sun in the same way, and that, therefore, is the only change with which we are concerned.
The fear of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is that unless we exclude electricity contracts from this Bill either people will lose some of their cheap off-peak electricity or they will be having it at times which, in part at least, are not consistent with their needs. My answer to that is, as I made clear in the answer to the last question that he put to me, that if this should arise then the Electricity Boards on their behalf and the customers on their behalf must make different contracts as to time.
LORD FERRIER: Or as to rates.
LORD STONHAM: And they can do that every three months. The contracts can be changed every three months. Therefore, not only is there no need to exclude electricity contracts from this Bill, but there is every need to include them in order that consumers can have the off-peak heat when they want it and

587
in order that the supplier can supply the off-peak heat at the proper times and when it is properly off-peak. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thought the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had got it wrong when he said that what people will be doing in the morning at 8 o'clock by the sun they will be doing at 9 o'clock by the sun this time next year. I should have thought that they would tend to be doing it at 7 o'clock by the sun. They will have got up an hour earlier by the sun if they are to be at work at the same time under this new régime. But there are certain people such as foresters and agricultural workers, whose time of starting work depends not on the clock but more on the state of daylight or the lack of it.
Therefore, the pattern of demand for electricity probably will alter. I think that only in the light of experience will the Electricity Boards be able to decide on the hours at which they can offer off-peak rates. It is going to be extremely difficult for them to decide in advance; for I am sure that the load factor will vary enormously from area to area. Therefore I think it should be written somewhere in the Bill that all present contracts will be cancelled and that new contracts will have to be drawn up within, say, three months of the coming into operation of the Bill. This would seem to me to get over everyone's difficulties and to be a fairly common-sense solution.
LORD CHAMPION: We do not need to do this by means of anything in the Bill. The arrangements between the electricity supplier and consumer are a matter for the two parties concerned. It seems to me to be quite clear that the off-peak periods will change and, therefore, it will be in the interests of the electricity supplier to "change the clock" to some extent. In this, of course, the electricity consumer will be glad to participate, because the fact that he is getting off-peak electricity means he is getting it cheaper. I must admit that this seems to me to be rather much ado about very little. I cannot imagine that this problem can be solved by an Act of Parliament.
But I am absolutely sure that both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord
588
Ferrier, are right in calling attention to this, and that the electricity supply industry ought at this time to be setting about the task of ensuring that, when the change takes place, the contracts have been altered in a way which will provide the mutual satisfaction that is normally experienced by the people who are the consumers. I also agree with the point about horticulture and, indeed, the question of battery hens and hens that are fed indoors, and so on. This is a problem which has to be solved between the parties concerned, and it would be nonsense for us to include a sentence in an Act of Parliament Which attempted to solve it.
6.10 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: I am sure that your Lordships do not want to go on worrying about hours and times. I would only say that I have been intimate with the electricity industry for many years and I would never dare to talk about it without having a graph in my hand to work out whether it is an hour on or an hour off. I will withdraw the Amendment, but before doing so I would, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, differ from something he said. What is to happen on February 18 is quite different from what is going to happen when this Bill comes into force. On February 18 Summer Time is going to begin, and under the contracts between electricity supply companies and off-peak consumers the consumer can elect to have his clock altered by the supplier on payment of a fee of 7s. 6d.; and I think it fair to say that very few consumers bother about that.
That brings me to the iniquity of this Bill because it is not Standard Time throughout the year; it is Summer Time in winter. On February 18 the clocks will go forward, but the electricity clocks controlling off-peak supply will remain the same as they certainly do in Scotland throughout the summer, where the long days do not require the clocks to be put forward. If I can help the noble Lord with some of my graphs, and things like that, I will gladly do so. I am sure that your Lordships do not want to hear any more about it at this juncture, and so I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.12 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to put one point to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He may not be able to answer forthwith, but I should like him to consider it before the next stage of the Bill. He may be aware that the B.B.C., in all its foreign services, begins with this type of formula: "This is the World Service of the B.B.C., 18 hours Greenwich Mean Time". I think that on the true construction of Clause 1 there is nothing to prevent the B.B.C. in its broadcasts from this country continuing that desirable practice, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look into it and make certain that his legal advisers take the same view.
LORD STONHAM: I will certainly look into it. I should not like to give an answer off the cuff now. I should have thought that the interpretation of Clause 1(2) would not interfere with the continuance of that practice, but I should like to go into it and possibly on Third Reading I shall be able to inform the House on that point.
LORD AIREDALE: I asked the Minister whether he knew if any other countries in Western Europe use the name of their country in the official description of the time they use. I do not know whether the Minister has the answer to that now. If they do not it is rather curious that this country should be invited to be so quaintly nationalistic in this particular way. Perhaps at some stage the Minister could let the House have the answer to that question.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, most certainly. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for not replying to his question. In fact, I made two speeches on that previous Amendment and I thought I should not make a third. I can say now that I am not aware that any European country uses French time, or Yugoslav time or West German or Polish time. I know that in America you have Eastern time, Pacific time and several varieties of that kind. I will give the noble Lord a firm answer to this question when we come to the Third Reading. On the other hand, I do not regard it as being nationalistic to have decided that we should call it "British Standard Time".
590
There was certainly a very strong feeling throughout the country that the Title should be "British", and without being in any way jingoistic I am bound to say that I strongly agree with that.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to. Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment. Report received.

ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In view of the lateness of the hour and the labours, which your Lordships have still to undertake this evening, I will endeavour to be as brief as I can, commensurate with trying to state my case. The Bill is aimed at the abolition of what, to me, and not only to me but to very many other people, appears to be quite an evil racket which goes on, in spite of legislation, about the supply of electricity through pre-paid meters, particularly where there are several occupants of one building or in caravans. There are many parts of the country where large houses have been converted into flats and flatlets. In my home town of Brighton, for example, there are hundreds of such places, and the honourable member for Paddington. South, who is a Conservative, Mr. Nicholas Scott, has told me of very many cases which have occurred in his constituency. He has expressed a desire to take over this Bill in another place, if your Lordships pass it in this House.
London must have very many places that are like Paddington. What happens in these towns and areas may be multiplied many times. My attention was first drawn to the matter by an article published in the Brighton and Hove Gazette on March 11, 1966. It told the story of an old lady living in a one-room flatlet whose relatives thought that she was spending far too much on electricity. They called for help from the electricity consultative council and discovered that she was paying 10d. a unit through the landlord's pre-paid hired meter. At the time the official maximum price was less than 2d. a unit, with 4d. a day extra

591
allowed for various expenses. The Brighton and Hove Gazette said in the article that they knew that there were hundreds of such cases in Brighton. Subsequently I discussed the matter with the Consumer Council, and this Bill comes before the House as a result of the discussions which took place, of their wide investigations and of their help.
In spite of the introduction in April, 1965, of the Resale of Electricity Order laying down a fixed maximum price, the Secretary of the South-Eastern Electricity Consumer Council has said that there is nothing that a tenant can do about it except go to law. Can your Lordships imagine old or poor, and in some cases ignorant, people, ignorant in a matter of this kind, taking the step which is involved in legal action, apart altogether from the threat of notices to quit which hang over their heads? The prepayment meter belongs to the landlord and he can recalibrate it to his own liking. Even the Electricity Board have no power to read the prepayment meter. They can only read the main meter, the account for which is paid quarterly to the Board. These prepayment meters are often purchased from second-hand dealers and are mostly reconditioned.
I have with me an advertisement from a journal—I never knew of it before—called the Exchange and Mart dated November 2, and one of its advertisements is headed, "There is money in slot meters." The advertisement certainly implies that the installation of a slot meter is a profitable investment. It even says, "All prices per unit settings available". By the courtesy of the Consumer Council, I have put one of these meters by the brass gates. If any noble Lord would like to see it after our debate, please look at it. On one part of it, in a very small circle, it says, "Rate A". And the landlord can change it to rate "B" or "C" or "D", whichever he likes. He has complete control over it.
I want to be brief, and I will state the problem in its simplest terms. The owner of property who wishes to have a main electricity supply introduced through a meter obtains from the Electricity Board a main meter, for which he is responsible and in respect of which he pays the standard price. From this meter the wiring system passes on through a number of
592
sub-meters, the number depending on how many separate residential areas the landlord intends to rent. It is mainly with the status of these sub-meters that my Bill intends to deal. The tenants who put in shillings, sixpences and pennies through the slot probably believe that this money is spent in paying the charge imposed by the local Electricity Board. They do not realise that the landlord pays his Bill at the end of each quarter and then collects what may be a substantially additional disguised rent. The Bill would also regulate other methods of charging where electricity is supplied to the main consumer and retailed by him to other consumers. The problem is not a new one, and the Electricity Boards recognise that the landlord's activities may serve to give an inflated idea of what the price of electricity actually is.
Others affected by the high electricity resale price are the many people who live on caravan sites and some of the visitors in boarding houses and hotels. The position of the caravan dweller is not clearly defined in law, and it is not certain how his tenure is secured. But my evidence indicates that overcharging in this sector is very common. When it comes to hotels and boarding houses, I remember an experience of my own a year or two ago when I went to stay in an hotel on the South Coast at Christmas time. The temperature of the bedr000m was not high enough and there was a meter there. I put a shilling in the meter and it ran out in less than a quarter of an hour with a one-bar electric fire. I was ignorant about the matter, as so many people are. I complained to the manager. He said that he would have to get the electricity people along to put it right. Now I know that he had it in his power to put it right, and was in fact "twisting" me on the amount of electricity I was using.
It has been suggested that it will be difficult for those who install prepayment meters in hotels and boarding-houses to take advantage of the clause in the Bill which allows the owner of a main meter to avoid criminal proceedings for overcharging if he repays the balance owing within a stipulated time. The purpose of this proposal is to enable the main purchaser to discover that he is making a profit in excess of that allowed by the Electricity Board and I should expect

593
that the result of this discovery would be a recalibration of the meter to see that the legitimate charge was made. A couple of weeks ago the Consumer Council bought one of these meters and found it capable of being calibrated to charge tenants far in excess of what is permitted by law. In passing, may I say that the only alternative to my Bill would be to empower meter inspectors to examine sub-meters and to enforce criminal sanctions where overcharging is discovered. At present they have no such power.
For the Record, may I quickly paraphrase the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 says that any person who requires the payment of charges exceeding the maximum charges applicable shall within 28 days of receipt of the payment repay to the tenant the amount of the excess. In these circumstances the landlord must give the tenant a statement of the maximum which is applicable, of the amount received and of the amount which is in excess of the maximum charge. Then follow the penalties. Clause 2 deals with bodies corporate rather than individual landlords.
May I conclude by saying that I have submitted my Bill, with ample time, to the Minister of Power? It took him four months to reply to my letter, and then only after I had "pushed" him once or twice. In his reply the Minister says that the tenant has recourse to the law. I have dealt with the impossibility of this action by the kind of people who are mainly concerned. Secondly, he tells me that the general impression is that the 1965 Orders have proved useful as a safeguard for tenants with controlled rents and security of tenure. But what about the mass of people who have no security of tenure? I wonder how many cases where there is security of tenure have actually come before the courts.
Thirdly, the Minister says that 28 days might be unfair to the landlord who has overset the meter. I have not much sympathy for that kind of landlord, but I should be quite prepared, if necessary, to consider an Amendment to extend that period. The Minister says that the fine may be out of proportion. Well, it is a maximum fine, and the courts do not often go up to the maximum fine. Nevertheless, if necessary, I should agree to a reduction of the fine.
594
I know that the Minister is having a meeting with electricity consultative councils in March next to discuss the 1965 controls. Frankly, I am not very optimistic about that. Any outcome from that meeting without further legislation, and this racket can go on and on. Meanwhile, probably thousands of people are being "rooked". This is another form of Rachmanism—a hidden form of Rachmanism. The last annual report of the Southern Electricity Consultative Council expressed deep concern at the ineffectiveness of the current legislation. That report bears out my contentions. I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend has to say for the Government with regard to this Bill. I hope the House will not think that I have occupied too long in describing what I have in mind, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Royle.)
6.32 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there is no doubt that the rackets which the noble Lord has described do exist, and in certain places to a considerable extent. We on this side of the House would welcome a Bill that deals with such rackets, with the slight reservation, of course, that we should like to examine it closely to make sure that it attacks the various evils in the right way. Where there is a separate meter for the tenancy, as, for instance, in the case of a cottage that might be let, and the landlord reads the meter and passes on the charge to the tenant, I believe the formula produced by this Bill is a satisfactory one. I am a little unhappy, however, about the effect where coin boxes are used for payment. I believe every word that the noble Lord has said about coin boxes and the way they can be adjusted exactly as the landlord likes, but, to a certain extent, this particular Bill might be a bit unfair to the landlord.
Parliament has decreed numerous safeguards to prevent landlords from charging tenants excessive rents. As is always right on these occasions, the law leans over backwards to come down on the side of the tenant rather than on the side of the landlord. Occasionally one finds cafes where there is definite hardship to the landlord, perhaps where a landlady

595
lets a few rooms and can get only a very small rent indeed compared with the expenses that she has to pay. Places of that sort would probably have a coin box meter in each room. It is most important that where the rent is small the landlord should not be forced to lose money over the electricity. Many of the single rooms, especially in London, are let for one day or for short tenancies. Unless the landlady opens the coin box fairly often, she may well find when she does that she has a number of foreign coins inside, or those little discs that are made to put in "one-armed bandits", and when she comes at the end of the quarter to pay her electricity bill she finds that she has not enough money from the coin boxes to meet the charge that she has to pay. In those cases I think it could be said that a landlady could properly put up the price to the tenant, to a certain extent, in order to cover the amount that she might lose over a period from tenants who cheat her.
Even if the landlady complies with Clause 1(2)(a), and in order to fill in the little charge sheet that she has to do she empties the coin box and works out the sum, she may well find that a tenant who has been there for one night has already left. Although she can ask for rent in advance, she may well find that she loses a night's electricity because some foreign coin has been put in the coin box. This over a period could cause a certain amount of hardship to an owner of lodgings where there are a considerable number of rooms. That is my first slight worry.
My second worry is that Clause 1(2) puts a little too much of the burden in certain cases on the landlord or the landlady in terms of time and trouble. I am again thinking of the short-term tenancy. It could well prove a difficult mathematical problem for a landlady to be faced, perhaps several times in one morning, with having to work out the amount of electricity that has been used, multiply it by the maximum cost per unit, then add up the number of coins in the box and subtract one sum from the other in order to fill in the written information to give to the tenant. Many hotel rooms, as the noble Lord has said, have electric fires with coin boxes attached. There will be great difficulty for a hotel guest leaving early in the morning who might
596
have to wait not only for his bill but also while the night porter works out what proportion of the 2s. 6d. he put in the electric meter the night before must be returned to him.
These are small points, but I am a little worried as to whether it would not be better, as the noble Lord suggested, to make it possible for the Electricity Boards themselves to install coin meters which could be really efficient and sealed, so that the amount of electricity per coin could not be tampered with; meters that worked efficiently enough so that neither the landlord nor the tenant could cheat. If this were done, both the landlord and the tenant would benefit by the fact that with boxes of this sort the notice needed under Clause 1(2) would not be necessary in respect of short tenancies. I do not think that this would cause a great deal of extra work for the Electricity Boards, because once they had installed these coin boxes they could be inspected whenever the inspector came to read the main meter. If these small points can be cleared up, then I shall welcome this Bill.
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support most wholeheartedly the Bill so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and to thank him very much indeed for the charming and moving way in which he has put his case. It is a case that I know very well. It is a case which the noble Lord has taken up on behalf of the Consumer Council and of consumers. He has taken immense trouble to get his facts, and he has recounted to us this evening a number of experiences which I am sure noble Lords will agree are very damaging indeed, and told us about matters which we should all like to see put right.
I am a little concerned about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, because it seemed to me that he took a point of view about the landlord being cheated. Naturally, one does not want a landlord to be cheated, and the noble Lord seemed to take the view that this was a matter with which the Bill does not deal. But, after all, the landlord is the kind of person who can well go to the courts and bring a case against someone who has cheated him. On the whole, he is probably a person of some substance, whereas the people we are concerned about are those, on the whole, rather

597
humble people who perhaps take a room or two rooms in a house, or who live in much more humble circumstances. Many of them are old-age pensioners who are not at all likely to go to the courts—indeed, they probably would not know how to do it.
I am not in the least worried about the landlord. I think he has every possibility of suing someone whom he knows, or has discovered, to have been cheating him, whereas the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, of the tenant who is being "fleeced" by a landlord who is buying one of these meters, is a very different matter. As the noble Lord has said, we have brought one of these meters here to-day and noble Lords can look at it in the Lobby afterwards. These meters are being widely advertised and can be bought by any unscrupulous person.
This is a very serious matter indeed. We have a tremendous amount of evidence pouring into our offices. I can assure your Lordships that we have not taken this question up lightly in any way. We have been deeply concerned about it. It arose in the first place in regard to people living in caravans, and then we discovered a great many other cases of one kind or another, which amount to a kind of "Rachmanism" which I think we ought to see is stopped.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will give way for a moment. I tried to make it clear that my objections to this Bill were small ones on matters of detail. I was not thinking of the rich landlord "fleecing" his tenants, and trying to protect him: I was thinking of the poor—possibly even very poor—landlady who lets out rooms in her house, and who might be cheated by unscrupulous tenants.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I understand the noble Lord's point, and of course there are two sides to this question. But on the whole, in the case of the people who let out rooms for a night, as the noble Lord previously suggested, the heating for those rooms would be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has said, by a shilling-in-the-slot meter which is put in and which will burn for either a longer or a shorter period, according to the honesty or dishonesty of the landlord. It is a meter, which allows
598
the tenant to buy a shilling's worth of electricity.
This Bill is designed to take account of people who are sub-letting accommodation of a variety of kinds and installing meters throughout their premises over which they have control and which the electricity meter readers cannot get at. They cannot go round to every room—they have not the authority. Therefore the position of the subtenants is extremely difficult and gives rise to a great deal of unfairness, and cheating. I am very keen that this Bill should stop this kind of exploitation.
I realise that it will probably mean a considerable amount of work for the readers of meters, but it cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility to arrange this through the electricity authorities. The noble Lord has said that there is going to be a meeting of the consultative committees of the electricity authorities. I am a little doubtful as to how much good that will do. I know that some consultative committees of the electricity authorities are concerned about this and would be anxious to put it right; but there are others who look upon it as a hopeless proposition and are not prepared to tackle it. I think it is time we did something about it, and in my opinion this Bill is an excellent effort in that direction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that we may have to see some changes in the Bill. Indeed, there always are changes when Bills go through their Committee stage in this House, but the principle we support, and it is one which we hope your Lordships will support, too.
On the whole, noble Lords in this House are anxious to put right any wrongs which are discovered by organisations such as mine, and this is an occasion when your Lordships can be in advance of other people. Having produced this Bill to-day in your Lordships' House and, as I hope, given it its Second Reading, we are doing something ahead of time, and I am anxious that we should give the noble Lord, Lord Royle, every possible support. I congratulate him heartily on the Bill, which I support.
6.47 p.m.
LORD BUCKTON: My Lords, I feel the t I must intervene for a few minutes to welcome this Bill, for if it had not been for action which I took in another

599
place there would have been no Section 29 of the Electricity Act for the noble Lord to seek to amend. My only surprise is that his interest in this matter is so recent, for when I first took an interest in this matter, in 1955, the noble Lord's constituency was separated from mine only by the Manchester Ship Canal.
My interest in this matter was first aroused in 1955 when I discovered that certain unscrupulous landlords were making profits ranging from 100 to 500 per cent. in the re-sale of electricity to the tenants of their flats. I raised the matter in another place and I was promised that it would be considered for legislation when a further Bill was introduced. When the Electricity Bill of 1957 was introduced no such clause appeared in it. I therefore arranged for a clause to be introduced in the Standing Committee, and it was because of the introduction of this clause that, on Report stage, Section 29 was added to what was then the Bill, and I think it has proved of use in dealing with this form of profiteering. However, it is clear from what the noble Lord has told us that developments since have shown the need for much greater powers. For that reason, I welcome the action which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has taken. I wish him well, and I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.49 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, anyone who is at all familiar with this problem would echo the sentiments which have been uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in introducing this Bill. I think it is known to most of your Lordships that I was for ten years the Chairman of the British Electricity Authority, from the date of its formation in 1947, and this matter of overcharging and of exploitation by unscrupulous landlords was raised on several occasions in the course of our deliberations and those of the Area Boards. Complaints of overcharging were fairly numerous but not always easy, on the data available, to track to their source. The allegations of inaccuracy of meters, the effect of which was to show that more electricity had been consumed than had in fact been the case—that kind of thing—furnished a source of complaint almost as grave as that of the deliberate overcharging by fixing prices.
600
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has suggested, and indeed it was suggested later in the debate, that the meter inspectors of the Electricity Boards could inspect, and perhaps should be empowered to inspect, the meters or the sub-meters which reveal these excessive charges. Dealing with that narrow point, I would say that that would add a great amount of work to the work of the inspectors. While that cannot be disregarded, at the same time I realise that it is not an absolute objection to the desirability of its being done. But it must be remembered that there would be no contractual relationship whatever between the landlord who owned those meters and the Electricity Board, and therefore there would be no means of requiring the landlord to make a payment for these inspections. So, in effect, the Electricity Board would be asked, and required, if this was passed into law, to inspect the meters privately owned at their own expense. That is one of the difficulties which stand in the way.
Time and time again when this question was considered by the Electricity Boards during my chairmanship there was a distinct reluctance on the part of the Boards to intervene, for two reasons. The first was that they did not think it a healthy thing for statutory boards to intervene between landlord and tenant. How far that would have carried the Boards and set precedents I do not know, but there undoubtedly was a feeling that these were matters which should be dealt with directly between the tenant and the landlord.
I mentioned in a sentence that complaints were received. But they were by no means numerous complaints, and even to this day I do not think anybody knows the volume of the complaints and just how big this problem is. That exploitation is going on I firmly believe; I do not think it could be challenged. But to bring that exploitation down to the state of a court of law and legal proceedings might require a great deal more careful attention than, with all respect to those who support the Bill, they realise would be involved. We all know the reason why people are reluctant to complain. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, has indicated that the insecurity of tenure that many of them necessarily have might easily mean that they would lose their homes. That could happen. In fact, if

601
I were to become by some misfortune an unscrupulous landlord I could find ways of avoiding the consequences of this Bill. It could be done. I am not going to give anybody the tip, because I do not think it is a good thing, but it can be done. We all know that dexterous lawyers, who always appear to be ready to give their services—always assuming they are properly paid for them—could find loopholes in what would appear otherwise a very clear and definite Act of Parliament.
The main difficulty is enforcement. How do you enforce it? I will come to that in a second. I am pleased to hear that one noble Lord was instrumental in securing the clause, now a section, of the 1956 Act. I think it is a good thing in itself. But let us never forget that it does not require the Electricity Boards to fix maximum prices. It is entirely permissive. It says the Boards may publish a list of maximum prices, and may do this and may do the other. So everything depends upon the will of the Boards and the depth of their conviction that they can give a practical turn to the attempt to prevent these abuses, before anything really valuable can be done.
I have spoken about the volume of complaints. This is specifically referred to in the Report of the Electricity Council, which represents all the Boards, for 1965–66. In paragraphs 113 and 114 the following appears:
"All the area boards published a maximum price operative from the 1st July, 1965, at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes in all types of accommodation."—
I do not need to bother about the actual price; that is extraneous to the discussion.
"Although the boards have no power to enforce a maximum resale price and cannot adjudicate in disputes, they are of course willing to give advice on request to tenants or landlords."
The first question that arises there is how much the services of the Boards have been sought in giving that advice. I have no statistics on the matter. But the paragraph which appears next, paragraph 114, may contain part of the answer.
"The operation of maximum retail prices will be reviewed when enough experience has been gained of their impact. Experience so far suggests that most of the difficulties or inquiries brought to the notices of the boards have been satisfactorily resolved."
So what we have still to discover are those many cases which I am sure exist
602
where the complaint is justified but has never been reported to the Board or has never come its way in any shape or form. The Report goes on to say that a review of this matter is to take place and they hope that some clearer experience will have been obtained.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, with very great respect and I am almost entitled to say, charity, I do not think his Bill will stand up to the Committee stage. I think the sections of it which deal with enforcement will prove to be full of holes. I have no legal authority for saying that; I am simply putting it forward upon my own construction of what could take place in this respect. There is no provision for imprisonment as an alternative to fines and we are still left with the difficulty about who is to be the prosecutor. Is it the tenant, who is afraid now to go to a Board and get advice about the misbehaviour of his landlord, or is it the Electricity Board? If it is the latter, it means that a great deal of additional expense, time and energy will be spent upon that.
May I make a suggestion, which I hope will help to achieve the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and those who support the Bill have in mind? Would it not be a good thing for the Minister to expedite a review of this matter? He has a meeting every year with the consultative councils of the Electricity Boards. These are completely independent bodies, not under the jurisdiction of the Boards. It is perfectly true that at least one Board—I recall the Southern Electricity Board, in particular—has reported severely on the malpractices which it believes to exist. If the Minister were given the opportunity, before this Bill is given a Second Reading at all, to consult with the Electricity Council and with the consultative councils, something really practical would result. I do not think that anybody denies the existence of the abuses, certainly I do not. Many times I fumed at the lack of executive power possessed by the Electricity Boards in this sphere. But I suggest that if the course I have suggested is taken it will help to bring this issue more speedily and I believe more constructively to an end, and will satisfy the mover and supporters of this Bill.
7.3 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise for rising, but I should like to support warmly Lord Royle on this Bill that he has brought before the House. May I inform your Lordships of an experience which I suffered last summer? I went away with my family on holiday. We stayed at a certain place which had an electricity slot machine. I was continually putting shillings in the meter. When the inspector came to read the meter I informed him of my experience, and he confirmed that the meter had been set to extort a far higher tariff than was justified by the electricity tariff. In circumstances of that kind, and if that goes on to a great extent in this country, I, for one, for those reasons alone, shall welcome the noble Lord, Lord Royle's Bill.
I have one observation on the speech of my noble friend Lord Denham, in regard to the unscrupulous tenant who may put some sort of "dud" coin into the electricity meter and thereby the landlord suffers. From my own reasoning I do not think that this would justify the alteration of the machine in any way to enable the landlord to cover that loss by extorting a greater tariff from some tenant who was "playing the game" and putting proper coins into the box. I would recommend that there be some research into these slot machines, and that a foolproof electricity slot machine should be put on the market. That is all I want to say. I most warmly welcome this Bill which has been introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Royle.
7.5 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think perhaps a brief word is called for from these Benches. I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Royle, might have adopted the fashion of the day and have called this Bill the Electricity Consumers' Protection Bill. It seems to me that, if it is passed, this Bill will do far more to protect consumers than some of the lesser clauses of the Government's Consumer Protection Bill, that most tortuous Bill with which we have again to wrestle this evening before our proceedings are concluded. Therefore, I hope very much indeed that this Bill will succeed, because if the Government's Consumer Protection Bill were to succeed in being passed and this Bill were to fail, I feel
604
that that would not be ultimate justice to consumers. Therefore I greatly hope that this Bill will reach the Statute Book in some form or another. Finally, may I say to the Minister that it will be difficult for me to remain to hear his winding-up speech. I hope he will acquit me of discourtesy if I leave. I assure him that I shall read his speech in Hansard with great interest.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I too should like to say a word in welcoming this Bill. I see the difficulties in enforcing it and, although I am not knowledgeable on the subject, I wonder whether it would be possible for anybody who is installing a subsidiary meter in his house to be forced to rent it from the local Electricity Board, to have it inspected by them, and to have it made in such a form that it cannot be altered? In that way, the consumer would be protected. It would be interesting to know, when the noble Lord opposite replies, whether he has any knowledge of anything in the nature of this sort of racket also going on in the world of gas.
7.8 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Royle for introducing this Bill on the resale of electricity. I know that my noble friend regards this as an important matter, and the whole House will, I am sure, wish to congratulate him on the way he presented his Bill to us. I have known Lord Royle a long time, and when a section of the community are being wrongly treated I expect him to come to their rescue, especially, as in this case, when the problem concerns old people and the poorer section of the community. He has certainly done this again to-day in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which he described as "the abolition of this evil racket".
My noble friend told us of overcharging with "phoney" meters, and so on, by unscrupulous landlords and others; in fact, he described it as "Rachmanism in a hidden form". He was, I think, most fortunate, in that all the several speakers who have spoken on this Bill gave him support, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Citrine, who gave it qualified support but, in my opinion, made a good suggestion to which I shall refer a little later. Most noble Lords who have spoken

605
to-night have given instances of cases where unscrupulous landlords have been perpetrating this evil racket.
Time is getting away and I shall not be unduly long in replying; but I will deal briefly with some of the comments which have been made, especially on the question of "phoney" meters, to which a number of your Lordships referred, and on which there was a suggestion by Lord Denham, I think, that it might be a good idea if they could be replaced with decent modern makes. The situation here is that the Electricity Acts do not require certified meters to be used, except for supplies by Boards themselves. To require all non-certified meters to be replaced would be a massive and probably an expensive undertaking, and would require legislation. So there is a difficulty there.
In June, 1965, using their powers under Section 29 of the 1957 Electricity Act, the Electricity Boards fixed maximum prices at which electricity may be resold for domestic purposes. The maximum price per unit in England and Wales was fixed at one farthing above the charge in the Board's standard domestic tariffs. In addition, landlords may make a fixed charge of up to 4d. per day to cover their own fixed costs, such as the quarterly fixed charge to the Electricity Boards. These maximum prices apply to the electricity used for domestic purposes in all types of accommodation—hotels, boarding houses and caravans, as well as in houses and flats in which electricity is resold by the Electricity Boards direct to the consumer, the occupier, through private meters. The Electricity Act provides that persons who are charged more than the maximum can recover the excess through civil action in the courts. My noble friend Lord Royle referred to this, and mentioned some of the difficulties which old and poor people might have in that regard.
We have now had two and a half years' experience of the control. It is difficult to get reliable information on how it is working in practice, but the Ministry's general impression is that it has been a very useful measure of protection for tenants, especially those with security of tenure and controlled rents. Where over-charging has taken place it is often due to ignorance of the control, and experience suggests that in most
606
cases landlords comply when it is drawn to their notice. Nevertheless, there may remain a small minority of unscrupulous landlords who deliberately overcharge, and even if tenants know about the maximum price they may not take action for fear of eviction. It is difficult to get a measure of the extent of this problem, although there is no evidence that evasion anything like as widespread as is sometimes suggested.
After the control was introduced the electricity consultative councils were asked to keep a watch to see how it worked in practice. In the event, the majority of councils have encountered only a very few examples of evasion. It is also significant that many of the people who write to the Ministry on this subject do not, on their own figures, appear to be overcharged, but they very often fail to take account of the fixed charge of up to 4d. a day which the landlord is entitled to make to cover his own fixed costs.
The Bill before the House is intended to strengthen the enforcement of the maximum price control. It would do this, in effect, by adding to Section 29(4) of the 1957 Electricity Act a requirement that the landlord must repay any excess charges within 28 days and, in certain circumstances, give the tenant a receipt specifying the total amount paid, the Electricity Board's maximum price and the amount, if any, by which the tenant has been overcharged. A landlord who fails to make repayment or to give the necessary receipt would be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 and £5 for each day for which the overcharging continues.
Although the Bill is intended to secure enforcement of the maximum price, its weakness is clearly that it would fail to do so for precisely the reason that the present control is alleged to be inadequate. In the last resort, its enforcement would depend on the tenant's taking up any overcharging with the landlord and, if he could not get satisfaction, going to the police. The position of tenants with security of tenure and rent control might be strengthened, but there is no evidence that this group are much affected by evasion. But the tenants who may need the extra protection—those without security and without rent control—will probably still be reluctant to take action for fear of eviction. In any case, without rent control there would be nothing

607
to prevent the landlord from increasing rents to cover any reduction in electricity charges, and the tenant would be no better off. The only way that the maximum price could be made effective for all such tenants would be to introduce a system of random inspection for private meters and bills, but this would be a very large undertaking. There would have to be evidence of widespread evasion before such a detailed and expensive control could be seriously considered.
There are a number of other serious practical and legal objections to the scheme of enforcement in the Bill. For example, the provision requiring the overcharger to seek out and repay within 28 days or to present a receipt to the person who had been overcharged would clearly be unworkable in the case of hotels or boarding houses whose occupants are continually changing. It might be that the Bill could be amended to remove some of these objections, but its primary weakness which has already been mentioned—that it would be an inadequate and unsatisfactory way of helping those who might need further protection—could not be remedied in this way.
The Government's attitude on this occasion does not mean that they are unsympathetic to the needs of the tenants. The simple fact is that the case for further legislation to deal with an awkward but relatively small problem has not been demonstrated. The Minister has made clear that if there is evidence of widespread evasion he will seek to ensure that more effective means of enforcement are introduced. I believe that my noble friend knows my right honourable friend well enough to realise that he is a man of his word. But we have not yet reached that stage.
The Minister has asked the electricity consultative councils to watch the position, and he intends to discuss the matter with their chairmen at the annual meeting arranged for next March. I know that my noble friend does not seem to have a very high opinion of electricity consultative councils.
LORD ROYLE: Oh, no!
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Well, he did not think much would come from this. But I may tell my noble friend that at one time I myself was a member
608
of such a council, and I can assure him that they do splendid work.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I must make it quite clear that I do not think that at all. I, too, think they are doing a splendid job of work.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend. This is a point where the experience of my noble friend Lord Citrine comes in, with the suggestion he made that the Minister should expedite his review through the consultative councils.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that it is vital to have the experience of the Electricity Council which, of course, is composed of the chairmen of all the various Boards.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: On the point about the Electricity Council, I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend the suggestion made by the noble Lord, because I believe this can help to produce the sort of fruit which my noble friend would like to see.
My noble friend Lord Royle will see from what I have already said that the door is not shut and still remains open, but at the moment I do not consider this to be the appropriate time for the action which my noble friend seeks in his Bill, despite the fact that he has had all-round support from speakers in this House. After what I have said, I am sure my noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say that, in the circumstances, the Government are unable to support his Bill.
7.19 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I hope I shall not be accused of any discourtesy if I do not deal with all the individual points which have been made by noble Lords. I can see the side of my Chief Whip's face, and I am very concerned, since I know what he has to face for the rest of the evening. I hope noble Lords will accept my gratitude for the part which they have played in this debate so far; I am very encouraged at the support which I have received from all parts of the House. I am a little concerned that most of the cold water has been poured by my noble friend Lord Citrine and my noble friend the Minister.

609
I seemed to get a warmer approach from noble Lords on the other side of the House, and I am very grateful to them.
There is one thing which I want to say to my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton. He seemed to indicate that this was not as big a problem as I was making out; that in point of fact the consultative councils did not think it was as big a point as I made out. I should like to read what the Southern Electricity Consultative Council said in their report:
"Council members are convinced that there are still a great number of cases where elderly or poor tenants in tenements, block of flats, et cetera, are overcharged, but are afraid to go to the courts or even to allow the Consultative Council to handle their case anonymously for fear of reprisals from the landlord or even of getting notice to quit. There is some evidence that more such cases are brought to the notice of the Citizens Advice Bureaux than to the Consultative Councils."
This may well be so. I should not like the House to think for one moment that I have exaggerated or tried to make too much of my case. I have done nothing of the kind.
My noble friend Lord Citrine has very rightly—and I appreciate it—pointed out the difficulties which might apply. He has also pointed out alternative methods of approach; and, in effect, my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton has said the same things and has suggested other alternatives. As I said earlier, I am aware that the Minister is meeting representatives of the consultative councils at the annual meeting in March next, and it may well be that they will get down to this problem. In fact, I know that it will be on the agenda. That being so, what we have said and done to-night may have an influence on that body, and I hope that when the meeting takes place they will consider what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening, which will show the strength of support for what my Bill is trying to do. It is a Bill which is trying to improve the present position so far as the tenants
610
are concerned, and which will help to blot out the evil which is going on.
I remember that in June, 1966, my late noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton introduced the Sale of Goods Bill. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will remember it very well, because he had to wind up for the Government. Having obtained a Second Reading, my noble friend said that he would not press for a Committee stage at that moment because of certain assurances which had been given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. But the matters which my noble friend covered at that time are not even included in the Consumer Protection Bill. This is an important problem. I do not want to be difficult with the Government, and I am a very practical man. I was a Member of another place for 19 years, and was a Government and an Opposition Whip, so I know the powers of the Government in another place for stopping things. I would much prefer that we made some progress on this Bill to-night, rather than that it should be damped down at this stage of the Second Reading.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night, and I shall not proceed with the Committee stage until I have had some report of the meeting of the consultative councils with the Minister in March. If that is done, I shall still have my rights. The Bill will have had a Second Reading and, without starting again, I shall be able to come back in the, Spring, probably after Easter, if I am not happy with what has been done, and we can then have a Committee stage of the, Bill. Therefore, my appeal to your Lordships is that you give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, with the assurance that I shall have another go at it if I am not satisfied after March, 1968.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
7.26 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brown.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like to begin by making a reference to a correction to Hansard, and that the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will then wish to move the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With permission, I should like to draw attention to a misprint in yesterday's Hansard. Lines 25 to 27 of column 378 read:
"at least the manufacturer ought to be prosecuted if he has played his part and done enough to justify the claim."
I understand that this has been found to be a printing error, and that what I actually said was:
"ought not to be prosecuted".
Clause 29 [Notice of test and intended prosecution]:
LORD CAWLEY LORD CAWLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( ) Where it appears to the Board of Trade that proceedings for the same or similar offence against the same person are being instituted by a government department or by a local weights and measures authority the Board of Trade may require any other local weights and measures authority giving such notice as is mentioned in the preceding subsection not to institute such proceedings."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a matter with which we have dealt before, but I wish to raise a point on it. It is concerned with preventing multiple prosecutions, but I now realise that the Board of Trade has almost complete power to prevent multiple prosecutions, and it is done in this way. There is no statutory duty on the Board
612
of Trade to issue a certificate if the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 29 have been complied with. Therefore, they need not issue a certificate to the prosecuting authority.
Subsection (3) says:
"A certificate of the Board of Trade that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been so complied with".
As soon as a local authority start a prosecution the magistrate will undoubtedly ask, "Where is your certificate?" If they do not have one they will have to set about proving that they told the Board of Trade, and I cannot imagine any local authority starting to prove that. It would be disastrous to their case. Therefore, in effect, I think that the Board of Trade can pretty well stop any prosecution they do not want to proceed, simply by neglecting or refusing to issue a certificate, because there is no duty on them to issue one. Merely to raise that point, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cawley.)
LORD BROWN: The implication of the noble Lord's remarks, if I understood him correctly, is that because of the interpretation which he puts on Clause 29(3) he is probably going to withdraw the Amendment. I do not want him to do so under any misunderstanding. It is quite clear that the Board of Trade have the right to issue or not to issue a certificate under this clause, but I think it is equally clear that if they have in fact had due notice in the proper form before 28 days of an intended prosecution by a local authority, then they would not, I think, legally be entitled to refuse to issue a certificate to that effect. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I would point out that we have given quite positive assurances that, even without the legal right to veto prosecutions by local authorities, the Board of Trade will nevertheless keep in very close touch and will act in a grandmotherly way. I think this is an effective assurance that they will not allow unfortunate multiple prosecutions. I do not think the noble Lord would be correct in relying on the Board of Trade to use Clause 29(3) in a way which I think would be a little improper.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understood that it was customary for grandmothers to spoil their children, not to restrict them. I am not altogether happy about the procedure to be adopted in this case. It is quite true, of course, that the Board of Trade will be able to tell a weights and measures authority that another Government Department—and the point of this Amendment, of course, is that as well as a local weights and measures authority, it is another Government Department—or a local weights and measures authority is already proposing to institute proceedings in a particular case; but I do not know how the Board of Trade are going to persuade local authorities not to have multiple prosecutions. The noble Lord said at an earlier stage that they would not "interfere" with local authorities. I think that was the word used, although I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Brown, or the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who used it. But to some extent, of course, the whole purpose of the reporting procedure is to interfere in some way or another.
I do not know how the noble Lord proposes to secure this co-ordination. I think we would all agree that there should not be multiple prosecutions; and at the moment the matter is left in the air. What is good sense in a particular matter is, of course, very often a question of opinion, and even dispute. But I think it is important that Parliament should devise a means to ensure that there will not be multiple prosecutions; and that is why this particular Amendment was put down. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that he has good hopes of attaining this objective without having the power that this particular Amendment would give him. It is quite paradoxical, after yesterday evening's proceedings, that the Government should refuse to take any power in this matter when they are offered it. The Board of Trade are here offered a power and are refusing it, presumably in full confidence that they will be able to secure this common objective without that power. I wonder whether the noble Lord could say a little more about how he proposes to secure that objective.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I ask one question before the noble Lord replies? Would it be for the convenience
614
of the Committee if I were to move my Amendment, which follows, now? It simply takes the matter a good deal further than this Amendment. Or would the noble Lord rather that I waited until he had answered this Amendment, in which case he would then answer mine separately? Perhaps the Lord Deputy Chairman could give us his guidance.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is not possible for two Amendments to be moved together by anybody, but, of course, it is more than possible for two Amendments to be debated together. If the noble Baroness wishes to debate two Amendments, or even more, on the Amendment now before the Committee, there is no possible objection to that being done, if she likes to intervene now.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he would find that more convenient or less convenient. I am quite prepared to speak now or to wait until he has answered the noble Lord and then speak again.
LORD BROWN: It is certainly quite convenient to me. The noble Baroness will understand that the objections I shall raise to her Amendment are so similar to those which I shall raise to the present Amendment that the reply will serve both.
LORD PEDDIE: Is my noble friend suggesting that he will be offering the same arguments to the noble Baronesses's Amendment as to this Amendment? There is something of a difference. If he is saying that, I would suggest that the two Amendments should be dealt with separately.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may make the suggestion that it might possibly be convenient to deal with my Amendment first, and then the noble Baroness can put the point of the second paragraph of her Amendment possibly more conveniently separately.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Very well; it is all the same to me.
LORD BROWN: I think the noble Lord asked for an assurance on the part of the Board of Trade that they would

615
be able to contain the nuisance of multiple prosecutions, and so forth. This is not a position where they can veto illegally; otherwise, we should not be having this Amendment in front of us. It is a psychological issue. I have observed—I speak now as a Scotsman, and perhaps the noble Lord will appreciate this—the extraordinary degree to which people in this country South of the Border can co-operate in issues of this sort. If the Board of Trade receive notice of several prosecutions pending under Clause 29(3) and they regard then, as being confusing or unnecessary, then communications will immediately go out to those local authorities and discussions will take place.
One can only assume that local authorities will be intent on prosecuting this if they behave thoroughly unreasonably. I do not think there is any ground for assuming that this is going to happen. These are professional people, and professional people who are extremely busy people. They are going to have a very busy time indeed under this Act. They are probably going to be short-staffed, as we all recognise, and if they feel that a nuisance can be handled, on the one part, in some other local authority's area or, on the other part, that the Board of Trade may say that the best thing is for them to take it over, it seems to me that they will be prepared, with gladness in their hearts and with a saving of expense locally, to drop the subject. These are the common sense rather than legal grounds on which we have decided not to invest the Board of Trade with this right of veto.
Had we done so, as the noble Lord argued on a previous Amendment, we should have been apparently delegating authority to them and then, simultaneously, exercising the right to veto their decisions, and to that extent one always makes people somewhat less responsible. I think the net effect of giving the Board of Trade veto power might be to produce some very serious arguments of a rather acrimonious kind when they sought to use it; and I think we might be driven into a position where local authorities felt they were in competition with the Board of Trade rather than in co-operation with them. We might find ourselves saying, "We have
616
used this veto a number of times and we do not want to pick up some more trouble in this locality; we shall let it go this time", when in actual fact we had felt that it would be better to use the veto or, in other circumstances, to invite their co-operation in dropping their prosecution. I think there are very strong psychological pounds for this decision. I cannot argue the case better than that, I fear. I hope that brings some satisfaction to the noble Lords opposite.
LORD CAWLEY: I think it would be a pretty brave local authority who would start a prosecution against the advice of the Board of Trade. I have told the noble Lord of the possible extra sanction, and I do not think I need say any more. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.39 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"( )

(i) Where on receiving notice of intended proceedings under the preceding subsection, it appears to the Board of Trade that proceedings for an offence or a similar offence against the same person are likely to be proposed by more than one local authority area, the Board of Trade may require any local authority giving such notice as is mentioned in the preceding subsection not to institute proceedings for such an offence.

(ii) Where the Board of Trade require a local authority not to institute proceedings by virtue of the preceding paragraph, the Board of Trade or other appropriate government department shall take proceedings unless and until the Board of Trade revokes the requirement to that local authority not to institute proceedings."

The noble Baroness said: Before I move this Amendment, I want to draw the Committee's attention to a misprint. It is in line 5. The word "by" should be "in": "by" does not make sense. It should read:
"… are likely to be proposed in more than one local authority area …"
I move this Amendment because I do not entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said on the question of national advertisements and national prosecutions. There could be conflicting decisions, with resultant uncertainty about the legality of the statement. If there are a great many different national prosecutions then a single prosecution by a Government Department was, I should have thought, clearly desirable. It would decide the

617
matter with certainty throughout the country.
Other Amendments deal with the position where one local authority is taking proceedings and a second intends to do so. The intention here is to stop a second prosecution. This, I agree, is useful, but I do not think it goes far enough to deal with the circumstances I have mentioned. Indeed. I think it more likely that there would be a sequence of local prosecutions rather than two or more concurrent cases. Further, I believe that it would be more convenient for a Government Department to step in at the outset, when a particular practice appears to have a national effect and at the time when the Board of Trade are first notified of the alleged offence.
The second part of my Amendment seeks to ensure that if a local authority is required to stop proceedings, for the reasons I have explained, it should have an assurance that either the appropriate Government Department will continue with the matter or that the local authority will be made free to proceed on its own initiative. I am anticipating here the very strong feelings of local authority officers if they are prevented from remedying an abuse in their own area, and where their own people—people to whom they show a very devoted sense of duty—are harmed. I am speaking here chiefly of the Inspectorate of Weights and Measures, although I realise that other enforcement officers may share those duties. In short, I am proposing that where an offence is likely to affect the country as a whole, proceedings should be centralised and taken by a Government Department, but that, as a safeguard, the central authority should not be free to sit on the matter and so veto local proceedings until the time limit of one year had expired. This I think would be most unfair. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD PEDDIE: I hope my noble friend will give serious consideration to this proposal because I feel it would be easy of operation and would also bring about a rationalisation of the procedure. There is always the possibility, with a nationally marketed commodity, that an infringement of regulations may result in
618
a certain number of prosecutions. If these prosecutions have been entertained in various parts of the country it is obvious that there is a strong likelihood of differing decisions. I should have thought acceptance of this proposal would have meant that the Board of Trade would have a better understanding or the situation and that it would introduce some measure of rational conduct in the whole operation of the Act.
If there be any thought that this is likely to interfere with the rights and responsibilities of local authorities the second part of the Amendment deals with that. Should it be felt by a local authority that no action was being taken by the Board of Trade when the local authority felt it was justified, then under the terms of this Amendment there would ultimately arise the possibility of the local authority's embarking on such a prosecution. I cannot see any reasonable objection to this. I think it would strengthen the Act.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I make one observation? I think this might get over the psychological difficulty that the noble Lord was talking about. The only point at which I think my Amendment was, if I may say so, slightly better was that it also introduced the possibility of a prosecution by another Government Department being already undertaken.
LORD BROWN: I think I may have expressed myself a little ungraciously when we had the debate about whether the noble Baroness's Amendment should be taken. I meant to say that the background arguments which I should use would be the same but not the fore ground ones. To demonstrate this, I will give them. I have already explained in relation to Amendments Nos. 64 and 67 why we do not think the Board of Trade should have a right of veto over proceedings by enforcement authorities. I have also made it clear that if a number of local authorities were to report to the Board that they wished to prosecute in respect of the same offence the Board of Trade might well have to offer to bring a central prosecution. I do not believe that if such an offer were made any local authorities would wish to proceed with their own prosecutions. But I have laboured this point sufficiently already.
As to the proposal that it should be obligatory on the Board of Trade to take

619
proceedings where they have prevented or dissuaded local authorities from doing so, I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is unnecessary. If a number of local authorities told the Board of Trade that they were proposing to prosecute in respect of the same nationally circulated advertisement, or something similar, the Board might well offer to bring a central prosecution; but it is quite unnecessary that the Board should always do this. What matters is that the offence should be dealt with by someone and that unnecessary multiple prosecutions should be avoided. This, the procedure proposed in the Bill will achieve.
Even if I could accept, which I cannot, that it would be right to place on the Board a duty to prosecute in certain types of cases, I am sure that it would be extremely difficult to define what those cases should be. There would clearly be no justification for the Board's taking over every case notified by more than a single local authority. Thus we should be left with a situation of having to assess the cases very carefully indeed to decide whether the situation was such as to justify our taking them over. The situation that would arise if we took them over, examined them and then found, on the deeper examination, that prosecution was not justified would be extremely embarrassing if the law laid down that, having taken them over, we had to prosecute. There are difficulties of this sort surrounding this Amendment which makes me worry a good deal about it. But the general reasons for asking the Committee not to accept this Amendment are really the psychological ones to which I have already referred in answer to Lord Drumalbyn's case for his Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He has on previous occasions said that the Board of Trade are always very loth to bring prosecutions. It is a fact that to get the Board of Trade to prosecute for anything is a very difficult matter. My Council's concern is that we are anxious that there should not be a great many prosecutions all over the country for one type of offence. In the case of a nationally advertised product, there may be prosecutions in magistrates' courts in which the results are quite different; and this would be most unfortunate.
620
The Board of Trade still think they would rather that happen and that there was not central prosecution, which seems to be very short-sighted. I think it would be very difficult if there were a number of prosecutions on the same subject all of which had different results.
Be that what it may, it still remains that the Board of Trade should realise that there is quite a large body of opinion in this sphere of people who want to protect the consumers which feels that the Board of Trade do not prosecute enough and that if they get prosecutions into their hands and do not use them this would be typical. I put this Amendment down to try to persuade the Board of Trade to prosecute when they have a good case. In the opinion of many people they do not at the moment prosecute enough.
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt before the noble Baroness sits down? I was very obstinate in Committee last night over the question of powers. I was aware of the fact that I may have created a little resentment, but I was trying to hang on desperately to having quite clear powers for the Board of Trade to enforce these Acts. I want to draw the noble Baroness's attention to the fact that I was doing this principally because of the comments that she has just made of the reluctance of the Board of Trade to prosecute—which always relates back to uncertainty about their powers. I assure the noble Baroness that we are aware of the dangers of multiple prosecutions. We shall do our best—we think we have adequate powers—to stop them in all cases where they would seem completely unsuitable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I comment on that? We were not complaining yesterday about the powers of the Board of Trade but the powers being given to local weights and measures authorities to inspect.
LORD BROWN: That is true. But the fact that the local weights and measures authorities are short of powers is equally important in respect of these prosecutions. There is such a thing as prompting local weights and measures authorities to prosecute if we do not think that they are doing their job. We have power under the Bill to call for an inspection and if, having prompted them

621
to get on with the job, they replied that the powers were inadequate because the Board of Trade failed to support those powers in this House, we should be in a rather awkward position. So I established the connection between the powers of the weights and measures authorities and the Board of Trade.
LORD PEDDIE: My noble friend indicated in his initial reply that the Board of Trade would seek to prevent multiple prosecutions. In the event of the non-acceptance of this Amendment I should be glad if he would indicate how the Board of Trade would operate to prevent multiple prosecutions.
LORD BROWN: With respect to my noble friend, I thought I had done that. Under the Bill the Board of Trade must receive 28 days' notice of every prosecution which is going to be brought by local authorities. In the light of their knowledge of the fact that multiple prosecutions, about issues which may perhaps concern the same advertisement, are about to take place, they would be in a position to find out what is happening from the local authorities and ask either one or more to desist and leave the prosecution to one local authority; or to say, "In this case we think it better that we should undertake a central prosecution and we invite all the local authorities to drop their prosecutions." I have no doubt that this sensible course would be accepted by the local authorities without any trouble at all. That is the process by which the Board could seek to prevent this unfortunate situation from arising.
LORD PEDDIE: I am glad to have my noble friend's assurance on that point.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.53 p.m.
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: There is obviously a good deal of doubt, which has been expressed, about what this subsection is intended to do. The Board of Trade will issue a certificate. According to what the Minister has said, this certificate has no value. It can be put in to show that the provision about 28 days' notice has been complied with, but there is a simple way to do that: the prosecution could merely produce
622
a document to show that they had submitted a case to the Board of Trade and had waited for the appropriate 28 days before instituting proceedings. It seems to me that the certificate has little value in any case except that it might be implied—and this is what we are concerned about—that the certificate is a necessary prelude to prosecution. It has been made clear it is not intended that the certificate shall be that.
I wonder why we want it at all, and whether we cannot achieve a little streamlining and cause less work for the Board of Trade by not having to bother to issue a certificate. The authorities would merely have to satisfy the court that they had apprised the Board of Trade and that they had given the appropriate notice. It seems to me that this would avoid a good deal of confusion and misunderstanding and possibly there would be a little less work to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD CAWLEY: I think that this is quite a simple matter. The certificate is designed to assist the court, and the procedure is included in numerous Acts. It would be much more difficult to call evidence and put witnesses in the box to say that they had sent a notice by recorded delivery, and so on. This is a help to the lawyers, and I think it ought to remain in the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, for the point he has made. Since it is accepted that it is desirable for the enforcing authorities to give notice of intended prosecution to the Board of Trade, it is only common sense that we should include a provision along the lines of the subsection to enable them to indicate that the required notice has been given to the Board of Trade. Otherwise witnesses would have to be called in person in each case to give evidence to this effect, which would be a waste of time. The further provision in the subsection about the certificate being genuine is designed to avoid the possibility of a defendant holding up the proceedings by quibbling about this point. He would have to produce evidence to substantiate his allegation. Having heard what has been said by the noble

623
Lord, Lord Cawley, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: Having heard the explanation and without prejudice—because I may return to the whole question of subsections (2) and (3) at another stage—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN had given notice of his intention to move to leave out subsection (3), and insert instead:
"(3) At the same time as any such notice as is referred to in subsection (2) of this section is sent to the Board of Trade, a copy of that notice shall be sent to any person against whom it is intended to bring proceedings, and the copy shall be accompanied, in lieu of the summary of facts, by the result of any tests on any goods purchased or seized for the purpose of prosecution."
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the Government wish to keep subsection (3), it would facilitate the discussion on this Amendment if I were allowed to treat it as if it were purely an insertion. In other words, in page 16, line 42, at end to insert the words on the Marshalled List. I should explain that this Amendment would require the local weights and measures authority to send a notice of intention to prosecute not only to the Board of Trade but also to any person against whom it is intended to take proceedings, but in his case the notice would be accompanied, not by a summary of all the facts, as required in subsection (2), but by the results of any tests only.
This is a similar procedure to that which applies in the case of prosecutions for traffic offences. It certainly has the advantage—and this is a considerable advantage, in view of the delay imposed by the 28 days' notice—of giving the person against whom it is intended to take proceedings notice in advance of the intention, at the same time as the Board of Trade is given notice. That would mean that he would have an opportunity to keep track of any evidence in his favour. Also it would save time, because it would give him time to have the results of the tests checked and challenged, if you like; but, at any rate, he would be able to have his own tests done as well as the tests which might be carried out by the weights and
624
measures authority. It seems to me that this is a reasonable procedure in the circumstances, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, at the end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As already explained by the Minister in relation to several other Amendments, the purpose of the Board of Trade's being given notice under subsection (2) of Clause 29 is to enable the Board to promote a uniform policy among enforcement authorities and to advise them on action being taken in respect of similar offences by other authorities; or, where it seems appropriate, to agree to take the prosecution. It seems, therefore, that to give a copy of the notice to the offender could serve only two purposes. In the first place it could give him somewhat longer notice of the prosecution, although he would get all the notice he needs when the summons is served. Secondly, it would give him an opportunity to make representations to the Board of Trade that he should not be prosecuted, or should be prosecuted by some other authority. But this would be quite inappropriate, as it would interfere with and delay the essentially co-ordinative function of the procedure and could come close to putting the Board, rather than the courts, in the position of deciding whether or not a case had been made out.
The provision that notice should be accompanied by the result of any tests or any goods purchased or seized for the purpose of prosecution does not seem to me to be necessary in the light of Clause 29(1). This already provides that a person must be informed of the result of a test on goods which have been seized and, where the test leads to the institution of proceedings, on goods which have been purchased. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not altogether happy with that explanation, because it does not appear that the Government have taken into account the procedure in traffic offences. Is there any basis for saying that anybody who receives a notice makes representations that he should not be prosecuted? I cannot

625
see any basis whatsoever. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to give the person against whom proceedings are likely to be taken a little longer notice, and to give him the result of the test at the same time as the Board of Trade are given the result. It is the timing that is important here. I do not want to press this proposal, but I hope that the Government will not discard it too lightly now that I have brought to their attention the parallel with traffic offences.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord's experience of the law in general is impressive, and I cannot claim a similar experience with the Road Traffic Acts. There will be no delay in getting the results of tests to the person who may be prosecuted immediately they are available. On the second point in the more complex situation where there is a possibility of the scene of a prosecution being shifted from one local authority to another or to the Board of Trade, we are afraid of the people who are to be prosecuted coming to the Board of Trade and trying to put arguments to us. I cannot give solid reasons for saying this, but I am advised, on the basis of the experience of the officials who advise me, that that is likely to happen. I hope that I have disposed of the argument about the test arrangements. On the other argument about—I keep searching for the word for a man who is to be prosecuted; there must be a legal term for him—the defendant—
LORD DRUMALBYN: The intended defendant.
LORD BROWN: The intended defendant is safeguarded in the matter of receiving adequate notice under the laws of the land as they stand now. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, because I think that it might have unfortunate repercussions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am surprised at the argument. I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible to print an ordinary form to send out to anyone who made representations saying that the Board of Trade cannot entertain such representations. I cannot see how pressure can be brought to bear on the Ministry, and certainly pressure which they could not easily resist. This is not an Amendment to which I attach an
626
overriding importance, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Scotland seems to be going rather by the board in all this. We have been talking of getting coordination in England and Wales. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any indication of how such co-ordination is to be carried out in Scotland, bearing in mind the fact that a local weights and measures authority may be intending to prosecute in Scotland at the same time and on the same facts as an authority in England. I hope that the Government have thought of this matter and will be able to tell me how they intend to proceed.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord was good enough to give me brief notice of this point. I understand that it is highly probable that the procurator-fiscals in Scotland will be agreeable, as a voluntary act—because they are not under an obligation to do this—to notify the Board of Trade in the same way as the local authorities in England are going to notify them. I cannot give an absolute assurance yet, but I believe that discussions are proceeding in this direction, and if we can get such an assurance I think that this will be adequate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This sounds like a very sensible working agreement, and I see no reason why it should not work.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Evidence by certificate]:
8.6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Amendment No. 70 is a probing Amendment. With the Amendment, subsection (1) of Clause 30 would read:
"The Board of Trade may by regulations provide that certificates issued by such persons as may be specified by the regulations in relation to such matters as may be so specified being matters referred to in section 2(1) of this Act shall, subject to the provisons of this section, be received in evidence of those matters in any proceedings under this Act."
The purpose of the Amendment is purely to limit the powers to make regulations

627
to matters covered under the general term "trade description". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 4, after ("specified") insert ("being matters referred to in section 2(1) of this Act").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I agree that this Amendment would cover a great many of the cases about which the Board will wish to authorise certificates to be issued, but it would not cover all of them. It may well be that undisputed technical evidence will be needed in proceedings for offences relating, for example, to marking orders, under Clause 8, or to advertisement information orders, under Clause 9, or especially for offences relating to services accommodation or facilities, under Clause 13. May I give an example to illustrate my point? An offence under Clause 13 might turn on whether or not the persons by whom a service was to be provided possessed the qualifications which it had been represented they would have. A man might claim to be a qualified architect or to have a cordon bleu chef in his hotel. If this in turn hinged on whether or not their names were on a professional register, there seems no reason why undisputed evidence as to that fact should not be given by certificate.
The noble Lord's Amendment would impose too severe a restriction upon the Board's powers in this matter and derogate from the very purpose which this clause seeks to achieve. If the noble Lord thinks that this power is liable to abuse, there are two effective safeguards: the party against whom the certificate is to be used in evidence can exercise his rights under subsection 2(b), and the regulations exercising the power are subject to Parliamentary control under subsection (3). I hope that this expansion of examples will allow the noble Lord to see that we do, in fact, need slightly more extensive powers than the Amendment would give us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged for the expression of intention here, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
628
"( ) The Board of Trade may by regulations establish standards of qualification and testing for such persons as are authorised to issue certificates under the provisions of this section".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear from its terms, and I do not think I need enlarge on it. At page 17, line 2, are the words "such persons as may be specified by the regulations". I was not clear whether those words were intended to refer to persons of such kinds as may be specified by the regulations or to individual persons who may be specified by the regulations. In either case, it does not seem to me from the drafting of this subsection that there is any power in the clause to establish standards of qualification of testing for them. I may be wrong about that, but to probe the matter I put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord does not miss very much. When I read these words I put upon the clause referred to much the same interpretation as he has done. However, on probing the matter further I am assured that the relevant words are, as he indicated, "such persons as may be specified", and that this is equivalent to the power, when specifying the persons who may issue the certificates, to say all persons holding such-and-such qualifications. I do not know if I have made that clear. I will say it again. Where in the clause it says that the Board of Trade may by regulations provide that certificates issued by such persons as may be specified by the regulations relating to such matters by the term "such purposes", we are, I am advised, giving the Board of Trade power to include in their regulations the specification of the professional qualifications of the persons. I agree that this is a slightly difficult interpretation to put upon the words, but I am advised that it can be put on these words, and it has been put on such words in similar Acts. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. It satisfies me perfectly. The effect seems to be achieved with the minimum of words, if indeed the

629
effect is achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Saving for civil rights]:
8.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to leave out Clause 33 and to substitute the following new clause:
Saving for civil rights
"33. A contract for the supply of any goods shall not be void or unenforceable by reason only of a contravention of any provision of this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. The object of this clause is to make it plain that nothing in the Bill is to affect the contractual or tortious rights of the parties. It is thought that the clause in its present form may not do that. There are cases, I think, in which an illegal act is mixed up with a contract and a court has said that this makes the whole contract void; and there are other cases where the court has said that, although it does not make the whole contract void, it makes it unenforceable at the suit of the party at fault. The original clause was not thought to achieve that purpose, whereas this new clause, it is thought, does so.
It is not the purpose of the Bill to prejudice the civil law remedies of the person to whom goods bearing a false description are supplied. This is a Bill which I suppose in a sense might have dealt with all this by no recourse to the criminal law at all, but by enlarging in some way the contractual or tortious rights of the other party. But it does not. This is a Bill which makes the future acts criminal acts, and does not deal with the civil law position. Neither would it be right to provide that the contract is void, or even that the contract is unenforceable at the suit of the party at fault. The fault, after all, may vary enormously. A man sells a £1,000 car, and there is a description of the car as having recently had the clutch relined. If that is untrue, certain criminal consequences may follow under the Bill. But it would be quite wrong that the owner
630
of the car should not be able to recover the contract price of the car, and wrong, for that matter, that the purchaser should be able to get a £1,000 car for nothing.
Therefore, the object of this clause as now drafted is simply to make it clear that there is nothing in the Bill which will have the result that the fact that there is an illegal act here either makes the contract void or makes it unenforceable. It is thought that the clause in its new form, as proposed by this Amendment, achieves that object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 33 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.15 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved to add to the proposed new clause:
"( ) In a contract for the sale of any goods to which a trade description is applied there shall be an implied warranty that the trade description is not a false trade description."
The noble Baroness said: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has moved the previous Amendment, which my Council would support, I am adding an Amendment to it which I now wish to move. As it stands, Clause 33 as now amended is a substantial subtraction from the rights a customer has under the existing merchandise marks law, and I therefore couple this Amendment with the last Amendment, No. 73, so that the buyer will not be deprived of a very useful legal protection—the right to say that if goods have been falsely described he is entitled to appropriate compensation by way of damages without having recourse to any other Acts of Parliament or to the Common Law.
I anticipate that a number of arguments may be made against this Amendment. It may be said that the civil law, strengthened by the Misrepresentation Act of this year and by new contract legislation which may follow, will provide the customer with adequate remedies in all circumstances. But this may not be so, and in any case it is always dangerous to rely on future legislative activity as a reason for not including sensible provisions now. Secondly, it may be said that the rights given to the customer under Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 have not been used in many cases. No statistics seem to be

631
available, and we cannot even hope to discover how useful Section 17 was to the customer, or how frequently it was used by buyers or by their solicitors to obtain out-of-court settlement of their claims.
In simple terms, I want the buyer who has bought goods bearing a false trade description to have the right to found a claim for damages on that fact alone, and, as I have said, this is so under existing merchandise marks law. It is important that this rule be maintained, because the scope of the present Act is much wider, of more popular interest and less technical than the previous Acts, and so we can anticipate that far more people will seek redress when they discover that they have bought goods which have been falsely described.
If we leave the clause as it is now, in its amended form, then we run the risk of having two different standards and quite unnecessary complications. A shopkeeper who has demonstrably committed a criminal offence under these proposals will still be able to resist a claim for compensation, relying on the wording of Clause 33. The claimant will then have to fall back on the civil law, sale of goods, misrepresentation law and Common Law. It is uncertain that this body of law covers as much ground as this Bill, and we could find a ridiculous situation where a description would be a crime, and the seller could be convicted, but he could not in any way be obliged to recompense the buyer for loss suffered. The situation in which this could arise is very complicated, but I am told that it can be best summed up by saying that an innocent, non-negligent description, not amounting to a term of a contract, could be a criminal offence under the Bill, but no civil remedy would exist after the agreement was finalised.
Apart from this technical shortcoming, surely we want to give to purchasers a single piece of law which will help them both to make sure that sellers are deterred from making false statements, and which will also provide civil protections for the buyer. It may be clear to the lawyer that other remedies will be available in many cases, but this is the Consumer Protection Bill and we want the ordinary purchaser to be able to find his law as easily as possible.
As your Lordships know, this Amendment is intimately connected with my proposed Amendment No. 40 to Clause 17, which I withdrew. Both share the same purpose of giving the purchaser a personal right to redress. With your Lordships' permission I really must counter some of the objections which were made, and no doubt will be made again, on this issue. As I have said. Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 now gives a buyer a civil remedy where a false trade description is applied to the goods he buys. None of the prognostications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seem to have afflicted us during the past 80 years. If it is said that the existing Section 17 has rarely been used, it is equally clear that a retailer who has been convicted is not going to defend a civil action when he sees from the Statute that the buyer has a civil claim against him. For this reason, questions about differing standards of proof in criminal and civil courts are really irrelevant. No one in his senses will spend money on a civil case which he knows he will lose.
There is another purpose which my Amendment serves, as I have said. The Consumer Council deals with many inquiries about remedies for false trade practices. If Clause 33 remains as it stands, many people will have to be told that proceedings lie under the Consumer Protection Act, but they will say, "What is there in it for me?" At present we can point to Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act and say, "There is your ready-made civil remedy". We shall not be able to say so under the present Bill unless it is amended, and naturally people will not be so willing to come forward.
At an earlier stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thought it was curious to combine civil and criminal law, as I had proposed in my earlier Amendment to Clause 17, which dealt with compensation. Substantially the same issue is raised here, and I would invite the noble Lord to look at Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1961 which gives anyone affected by an offence under that Act the right to raise a civil action for breach of duty. I know that this Act deals chiefly with safety to the person, but none the less the precedent is there. Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 carries the same principle into

633
the field of trade descriptions. I allow that separate actions may be necessary in principle, but for the reasons I have already explained in practice the existence of a civil remedy is all we want.
I hope the Government will not say that my purpose will be served by the civil remedies given by the new Misrepresentation Act 1967, because that Act will not fill the gap. The Misrepresentation Act is a bit of a red herring. It merely filled in a very small gap in English law, which I may say never existed in Scots law. In certain cases the Act now gives a person the right to revoke a contract, whereas before he only had a right to damages. I know there are other legal refinements embodied in this Act, but this is the main point that concerns us here. In any case, I find it curious that the Misrepresentation Act should be dragged in, because misrepresentations are a far more delicate and rare species than common false descriptions, and it is these with which we are chiefly concerned here. The first civil remedy that comes to hand is, of course, Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which confers an implied condition that goods correspond with their description. But the trouble with all these civil remedies is that they will not be linked with the Bill and they would involve a county court case starting ab initio. Both my Amendment and the existing Merchandise Marks Acts provide this useful link. It is true that I have left out the seller's right to exclude his liability under Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, but I hope discussion of this matter need not delay us. I am anticipating the work of the Law Commission, but I should be nearly as satisfied if Clause 17 was reinstated in full, in the knowledge that the exclusion of liability at the end of that section is, I hope, already under sentence of death.
Finally, in this matter there was mention of fast-moving low-priced goods, but we should not forget that furniture, carpets, and perhaps second-hand motorcars and other quite expensive goods are all covered by this Bill. It is here that an easily established civil remedy is needed for the person who has lost an amount perhaps of the order of £10 to £50 or more, as a consequence of a false trade description being applied to goods. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
8.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to make one comment and to ask one question. My comment is that what the noble Baroness said about my remarks was not exactly what I meant. I was dealing only with the case of combining civil and criminal remedies in the same court at the same time. I was not going further than that. When I saw this Amendment I read it in a rather different sense. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can comment on it. The intermediaries, the retailers, feel that they are going to be rather unfairly at risk because of the withdrawal of the implied warranty, and I should very much like to see it reinstated. They feel that if this is done it will be much easier for them to shift the blame on to the manufacturer. It is strongly felt that if this kind of provision were included in the Bill it would ease the task of a retailer in defending himself where he has acted in good faith on a trade description by a wholesaler or a manufacturer, because in the past he has been accustomed to treat that kind of representation as an implied warranty.
LORD CAWLEY: If a retailer buys goods, is not an implied warranty that it does not bear an infringing trade mark equally an implied warranty that it does not infringe a patent in law at the moment? I do not know whether there is an implied warranty at Common Law that it does not offend against the Merchandise Marks Act, but it might be better if this were placed in the present Bill to clarify that point, if that warranty does not exist at Common Law.
LORD PEDDIE: In moving her Amendment the noble Baroness gave the Committee a mass of evidence in support, and I made a note of one or two points which appear to be very important. I should be glad if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could help me in deciding whether or not the arguments that have been advanced are based on fact. I understand from what was stated that if we leave the clause as amended, a shopkeeper who has actually committed a criminal offence tinder these proposals will be able to resist a claim

635
for compensation. That was the statement which was made, and it was said that the claimant would have to fall back on the civil law, that probably the civil law does not cover the same ground as this Bill, and therefore it would be a disadvantage. If that be so, it would seem to be a serious disability, even with the clause as amended, and I take it that the purpose of the Amendment is to give the right to the buyer who has bought the goods bearing a false description to establish a claim for damages on that fact alone. Those seem to me to be two very important points which, if they can bear examination and acceptance, would appear to strengthen the Bill very greatly.
8.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This matter has a somewhat complicated legislative history. As the noble Baroness has said, the Amendment seeks to reproduce in the present Bill the substance of the first part of Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 in so far as it applies to false trade descriptions. The second part of that section permitted the vendor to contract out of the implied warranty by delivering to the buyer a written disclaimer, which the buyer accepted. The Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is silent on whether contracting out of the implied warranty is to be permitted or not. I imagine she probably intends that there should be no contracting out, but it is not clear whether the Amendment would have that effect. As I expect she knows, this provision of Section 17 has in fact been very little used in the last 80 years. The Molony Committee recommended that Section 17 should be continued in substance, but that the right to contract out should be confined to sales of secondhand, imperfect and auctioned goods. This was in line with their general recommendations on contracting out of liability under the Sale of Goods Act.
In the 1966 Bill Clause 34 reproduced the substance of the existing provision. It did not, however, impose any restriction on the right to contract out, because it would have been wrong to implement the Molony Committee's recommendation on this point in isolation from their recommendations on the wider question of contracting out of the Sale of Goods Act conditions and warranties. At about
636
the same time, the Misrepresentation Bill was introduced in this House and it became apparent that Clause 34 was inconsistent with the principles of the Misrepresentation Bill in that it could operate to make a seller liable for damages when he had been guilty of neither negligence nor fraud. With the passing of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 the arguments for omitting the provision have become really irresistible. The buyer of goods bearing a false trade description will now almost always have a civil remedy, either under the Common Law or by virtue of the new Act, if the trade description is a term of the contract or if it was one of the causes which induced him to buy the goods. If he did not know of it or was not influenced by it, there is no case for giving him a remedy on account of it.
If the misrepresentation was made negligently or fraudulently the buyer would have a right to damages and rescission of the contract. This would apply unless the seller could prove that he had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe up to the time of the sale, that the facts represented were true. Even if the seller was entirely blameless (so that he would not be liable for damages), the buyer would be able to rescind the contract and ask for his money back; and if the trade description had become a term of the contract he could also claim damages at Common Law.
The worst feature of the provision which the Amendment seeks to preserve is that it imposes a civil liability even on a seller who was in no way to blame for the false trade description and would have a complete answer to a criminal charge in respect of it. It would also be inconsistent with a fundamental principle of the Misrepresentation Act, namely, that there shall be no right to damages where a misrepresentation is wholly innocent.
It may also be noted that the provision of a civil remedy is really out of place in a Bill of this kind. Of course, the Law Commission has a Working Party working on exemption clauses. The right time to deal with exemption clauses in this small field is when we deal with exemption clauses generally. But, speaking in general I think the point really is this. One can

637
conceive of a Bill in this field which sought to impose obligations simply by giving the other party to a contract a civil remedy. But this Bill does not do that. This Bill does not deal with the law of contract at all. If this Amendment were to be accepted, this would be the only clause in the whole Act which deals at all with contractual rights or tortious rights. This is a Bill which imposes obligations on people which are to be enforced by the criminal law imposing penalties.
We have now got the Misrepresentation Act, which very carefully defines the exact circumstances in which there are to be remedies for a misrepresentation. Of course, there are rights in tort. There is no difficulty in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation; there is a right to rescind and a right to damages as well. But until the Misrepresentation Act it had been a general principle of English law that you could not get damages for an innocent misrepresentation, or in general even a negligent one. The Misrepresentation Act has now defined very carefully what your civil remedies can be. There are cases in which you can get both the contract rescinded and damages. There are other cases in which you cannot get damages but you can have the contract rescinded. It would be contrary to the general principles of this Bill, which, as I have said, is a Bill which imposes obligations to be enforced by the criminal law, if we started putting into it clauses which are in conflict with what we have carefully decided the civil law to be in the Misrepresentation Act. It is for those reasons that I am unable, I am afraid, to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his reply. Far be it from me to enter into any kind of legal argument with the Lord Chancellor. I am not a lawyer, and the information given me is from the legal department of my Consumer Council. I naturally take him to mean that the view expressed by my representatives, that the Misrepresentation Act is not going to give the same kind of protection this Amendment would have given, may not be correct. I hope that is so. I hope that what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said will give the kind of protection we
638
are seeking in this Bill. I will study with great care and interest what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
8.37 p.m.
Clause 34 agreed to.
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Records of transactions in imported goods
" —(1) The Board of Trade may by order require that any person dealing in imported goods of a kind specified in the order shall keep and retain for a period of at least two years a true record of every transaction in which he engages by way of trade in such goods other than a sale by retail and such record shall include the names and addresses of the parties to any such transaction together with particulars of the date of the transaction and of the description, quantity and origin of the goods which were the subject thereof.
(2) The record mentioned in the previous subsection shall be a 'document' for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) of section 27 of this Act.
(3) Any person who fails to comply with any requirement of this section or any order made there under or wilfully destroys or defaces any record of the kind mentioned in this section before the expiration of two years from the date when it was made shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed for a particular purpose and to cover a particular difficulty in which local authorities find themselves at the present time. Clause 27(1)(c) enables an authorised officer to require the production of books or documents, but there is nothing in the Bill which requires a person to keep documents. Obviously, he does for normal trade purposes, but he is not obliged to and there is nothing in the Bill which says he must. Generally speaking, it would probably be quite wrong to make such a requirement part of the general trade and business they undertake, but there is a specific case with regard to imported goods and a specific case also where those imported goods are imported in bulk and then broken down. There are such things as butter, lard, honey and wine, to take examples of goods which are imported in bulk from foreign countries. They are broken down, very often blended and

639
so on. It is within the knowledge of officers in the local authorities that a good deal of misdescription goes on as a result, but they are quite unable to get at it because they cannot get at the original record, as the documents are not necessarily available, and there is no requirement that they should be produced.
What this Amendment does is to ensure that the documents shall be available for a reasonable period and shall describe what has happened to the goods after the first importer brought them into this country. It would mean that what it is now impossible to deal with in the way of misdescription would become possible to deal with. There would still be a great deal of difficulty about it, but at least it would act as some check on what happens at the present time.
It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships that not so long ago a great fuss was made about imported wines and about a misdescription which was applied to them. Some importers argued that they improved the wines by blending them, although they kept the original labels. That may be, but that does not alter the fact that it is still a misdescription. But unless you have some sort of record to begin with as to where the wine comes from, and other information about it, there is not much that can be done. This applies also to the other articles that I have mentioned, and may well apply to other types of goods. Having regard to the fact that so far the Government have not accepted many Amendments, except the one red letter one that has been moved for the Government, I hope they will look a little more favourably on this Amendment than they have done upon many others that have been moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have sympathy with the noble Lord in his Amendment, although I am not absolutely certain of the actual words he has used. I am not quite certain what the interpretation of "dealing in" is. I do not know whether it is wide enough to cover the kind of cases that he has in mind. It is not only main importers who, as I
640
read this, are affected. It means importers dealing in the goods. He seems to be treating this as applying to anybody who has anything to do with imported goods, including the blending of them and so forth, and who may buy them at third or fourth hand after the importing. I am not quite certain whether the actual drafting here will cover the points he has in mind. But, subject to that, I am in considerable sympathy with his idea.
LORD PARGITER: I am not wedded to this form of words; I am merely wedded to the principle. If the Government would indicate that they accept the principle, and would provide a more suitable form of words I should be only too happy to withdraw the Amendment on that basis.
LORD BROWN: My noble friend referred to the fact that we had not accepted many Amendments. We did accept one, but eventually it was withdrawn. But I would point out that although we have not accepted Amendments we have undertaken to consider a large number of cases, as is customary when, as so often happens, Amendments are not phrased in a way to fit into the Bill. I do not want to be accused of being too Micawber-like.
This Amendment would enable the Board of Trade to place onerous record-keeping requirements upon all who deal in imported goods, and I cannot think that we should be justified in accepting it. I would first of all point out that if the goods have passed through several hands on their way to the consumer—and there is nothing in the new clause to suggest that these several hands through which the goods pass must not keep them, except for the fact that it leaves out retail sales—the dealers may well not know whether or not they are imported goods.
In the second place, I believe that, in most cases, the normal records kept by traders will suffice to enable the Bill to be properly enforced; and it would not be right to give the Board power to impose a special record-keeping duty on all to cover a small minority of cases. Finally, the clause which my noble friend proposes would invite the Board of Trade to impose an onerous requirement in respect of, and only in respect

641
of, imported goods. I should be the first to hope that our traders would prefer to stock British goods and that our shoppers would prefer to buy British goods. But we cannot pursue that aim by building into this Bill a discrimination which I am quite sure would be contrary to our international obligations, legal and otherwise.
Perhaps I may just add that there must always be an importer into this country, and if that importer is guilty of applying a false description, then he can be assailed for the act and he will have to produce the information. Whether that information be elsewhere in some other country, if he is selling goods in this country with a false description, and if they want to know what the content of the wine is and so on, the Board have power under this Bill to insist that the information is provided. For this reason I have been puzzled as to the real essential purpose of this new clause; and perhaps my comments may satisfy my noble friend that it is not really so necessary as he may have thought.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just add a word to what the noble Lord has said? He will recollect that on Second Reading I referred to the report of the weights and measures inspector in which he talked about the difficulties of dealing with trade descriptions on imported goods. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord's Amendment would help with that. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has referred to the fact that it is possible, shall I say, to "nail" the importer. I should like to be satisfied that imported goods are not at an advantage as compared with British goods, in the sense that somebody can always be "nailed" on imported goods, just as much as on British goods, where there is a false trade description put on by a manufacturer. This is what one wants. It is not a question of discriminating against a foreigner, but a matter of making certain that the foreigner is not put in a position of advantage in comparison with British goods.
LORD PARGITER: Frankly, while obviously I am not going to get far with this Amendment, I was not getting, or seeking to get, at the original importer. He will import in good faith and he will break down the bulk and will sell it with
642
a proper description. There is no question that he will necessarily be at fault in selling his bulk article which he has imported, and then has broken down to some extent to go for blending purposes and various other things. The point at issue is what the person who buys the article from him does with it, and what ultimately it arrives as when it gets into the shop. It is in order to get this right that I put this Amendment down. Unless you can get at the original record you really cannot do anything about it. If you suspect that a person has given a wrong description to a blended article, or something of that kind, and his records show that he has bought certain goods and so on, it is possible to go back to where the one part of the product which is being sold was imported, and from that to establish the case with regard to the extent to which there may be a misdescription of the goods which are being sold to the retailer. I should not think that that would be so difficult.
What my noble friend has now said is that in fact this would create difficulties, and would impose on the importer something of a severe penalty. Where is the severe penalty in having to keep a record of his purchases and his sales for a reasonable period? Two years may be the right or the wrong period, but I should not have thought that a duty to keep these records for a reasonable period, so that they are available to be picked up by the weights and measures inspector at some time, in order that he may trace the origin of the article and the point at which it became dealt with in such a way that it ultimately had a misdescription when it came to be sold over the counter, was imposing a particular hardship. The keeping of such records could not possibly be a hardship in any way. I think it is quite reasonable. I admit that often there may be difficulties in this type of case about getting a proper description applied to the goods. But anything which acts as a deterrent and ensures that a proper description is applied, and that people do not carelessly slip up in these matters, will be for the general benefit of the consumer.
LORD BROWN: With great respect to my noble friend, I suggest he is putting upon this matter a very different interpretation from that which could properly

643
be put on it by the words in the new clause. It starts off:
"The Board of Trade may by order require that any person dealing in imported goods of a kind specified in the order shall keep and retain for a period of at least two years a true record …"
He made reference to bulk goods. Well, wine coming in bulk may be dealt with at two or three stages and may involve hundreds, indeed thousands, of firms. This is a power which possibly would cause as many as thousands of firms to keep extensive records. I do not see the purpose of this proposition.
Compare the onerous nature of an order insisting that all those records should be kept with, on the other hand, the difficulty which one might occasionally come across of finding goods which had been imported that were the subject of a false description. There might occasionally be difficulty in tracing these back to the importer, although the person who had offered them for sale would be under some duress to provide the information which would take the authorities back to the importer, otherwise he himself would stand in some danger of prosecution. If he said that they were bought from persons unknown, well, that is not always a tale which could be accepted. So if one leaves the law as it stands, it will in most cases be necessary to go to the importer, who, if he is running his business properly, would have the necessary records. If he has not, then the worse for him according to the law. Therefore I do not think this Amendment is necessary.
I turn now to Lord Drumalbyn's point. Far be it from me to shrink from the idea that we should see to it that importers are not put in a favourable position as against those who supply British goods. I will think about this point to make quite certain, since I am alarmed at the mere thought that this might be so. However, I do not think it is so under this Bill. There must be an importer, and he is under the same requirements in the Bill as anyone else. I do not think that there is any possibility of his being in a different position, but because the anxiety is an acute one in my mind at the moment, I will promise to think about it.
LORD PARGITER: Having regard to the explanation which has been given,
644
although still I think that the Amendment could be made workable—it may not be as precise as it ought to be, and perhaps it is widely drawn whereas it ought to be narrowly drawn—in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35:
Orders
35.—
(3) The following provisions shall apply to the making of an order under section 7, 8, 9, 14 or 34 of this Act, except in the case mentioned in section 10(2) thereof, that is to say—
(a) before making the order the Board of Trade shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by it and shall publish, in such manner as the Board think appropriate, notice of their intention to make the order and of the place where copies of the proposed order may be obtained; and
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved in subsection (3)(a), to leave out the first "such" and insert:
"the associations of local authorities and such other".
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, who unfortunately is unable to be present, may I say that I am interested in Amendments Nos. 76 to 78. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place on Clause 10(2), I do not wish to move Amendments 76 or 77, but I wish to move Amendment No. 78. This Amendment seeks to ensure that those bodies who have to work in close co-operation with the Board of Trade in connection with the orders and with their execution are brought fully in to consultation. I know that the clause says that so far as the Board of Trade are concerned they will consult such organisations or bodies as may appear to them to be interested. The local authority associations themselves will be interested in all circumstances, and they particularly wish that this fact shall be recognised. If there is a particular partnership between the associations and the Board of Trade they wish this to be recognised in this particular clause, whereas other organisations might be brought in from time to time according to the nature of the order. Therefore, as it would appear

645
that they will always be concerned, it would make it clear that the local authorities are virtually partners with the Board of Trade in regard to any orders. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 14, leave out ("such") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord wishes to provide that the Board of Trade must in every case before making an order consult with the associations—and, as his Amendment stands, with all the associations—of local authorities. The weights and measures authorities who will have to enforce orders obviously have a substantial interest in them, and it therefore follows that in such cases the clause as it stands will oblige the Board to consult the organisations representing weights and measures authorities. To that extent the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord would be superfluous; and to the extent that the Amendment would require the Board to consult as a matter of course with any other associations of local authorities, even though it was apparent that they could have no substantial interest in the particular matter, I suggest that the addition of these words would be quite inappropriate. The force of my argument turns on the assumption that my noble friend in his Amendment is intending to include weights authorities in local associations. I hope that this is the case, because in that case he will understand that the Amendment is not required.
LORD PARGITER: I was dealing with the authorities concerned with the operation of the Act; I may have used the term loosely in the wording of the Amendment. But on the assurance given that the Board of Trade must consult, and having regard to the fact that this will be on record, I think that will be sufficient to satisfy the authorities themselves that they are properly protected.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3)(a), after "it" to insert "including advertising and design organisations". The noble Lord said: This is a similar type of Amendment to that which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Pargiter. I really put
646
it down in order to seek information. The Amendment would make clear in the clause that the Board of Trade will bring the advertising and design organisations into any prior consultations before orders are drafted. It is not, in my view, sufficient to limit consultation to the trade bodies. In this Bill the Government are entering into new fields hitherto left to voluntary control, and it is most important that full consultations should be put in hand and that if possible prior agreement should be reached to ensure that any statutory orders are practicable and easy to understand and also that they do not jeopardise good advertising design and techniques, on which we as a nation depend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, after ("it") insert ("including advertising and design organisations").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD BROWN: We appreciate that there will be cases in which the interests of the advertising and design world are liable to be substantially affected by a proposed order. It will not necessarily always be so. For example, one can envisage that their interests might not be affected by an order under Clause 35(2). But where it is so, Clause 35(3) as it stands already obliges the Board to consult the representative organisations of these interests, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Board would be fully conscious of that duty. I hope, therefore, that he will recognise that it would be superfluous to add this express reference, which might indeed even be interpreted as obliging the Board to consult advertising and design organisations in every case even though their interests were unaffected. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to my noble friend for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I rise to move Amendment No. 80 merely to try to find out what the actual procedure is to be here. Since we last dealt with this matter we have added a provision in regard to 28 days. I take it that this is intended to be a minimum period. But I

647
was wondering whether the timing of the various operations is put in chronological order. As drafted it appears that the first step is to consult, the second step is to publish, and the third step is to consult again if anybody makes representations. Is that correct?—because that is the way it is set out. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("thereafter").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I do not think it is necessary to specify the sequence in which the Board of Trade must carry out their obligations, imposed by Clause 35(3), to consult with representative organisations and to give notice of their intention to make an order. Indeed, it could be positively unhelpful for all concerned to impose a rule to this effect. The best technique for evolving the order will, I suggest, depend very much on the nature of the particular case. Sometimes the consultation can best be conducted on the basis of a very general proposition, and at the end of the process it will be quite possible to draft an order in near-final form. But experience in other fields suggests that this will not always be so. In some circumstances it may be practicable to start with the draft of an order, and far more helpful for everyone to have this as a focal point for the process of consultation. Indeed, sometimes it may be best to combine those two approaches: to begin with consultations on a general proposition, and then, in the light of those consultations, to produce a draft of the order, and proceed with further consultations on the basis of the draft. Therefore the answer to the noble Lord's question—I can understand his wanting to get this answer—is that we are not trying to impose any particular order of sequence. I hope that will satisfy him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would just ask the noble Lord to make it clear—because I think this is the intention, and I am sure that people outside would like to know—that when he is talking about making a draft of an order he is not talking about making an order. That is quite a different thing.
LORD BROWN: That is quite right. It is a proposition for debate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Interpretation]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in the definition of "advertisement", after "list", to insert:
"but does not include any label printed on or affixed to goods or to any wrapper or outer container."
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope the noble Lord will say that this Amendment is unnecessary, because I do not think anybody in the advertising world understands an advertisement to cover a
"label printed on or affixed to goods or to any wrapper or outer container."
The activities are considered quite distinct. The activities of packing and what is put on packing—if anything is put on at all—are quite distinct from the activities of making goods known. I think I have said quite enough about this, and I need not go any further at this stage, although I may have to do so later, in view of what the noble Lord may reply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("list") insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: I have a long note here, but I think I can possibly satisfy the noble Lord with a very short answer. If the label refers only to the goods to which it is affixed, then I am advised that it is certainly not an advertisement. If, on the other hand, the label attached to goods or wrapped around goods refers to goods other than those around which it is wrapped, then it may well be an advertisement. I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord. If it does not, I shall read him my much longer note.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That seems to be perfectly understandable and perfectly sensible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after the definition of "goods", to insert:
""to a material degree" means to such a degree as is likely to induce a purchase of goods or acceptance of an offer to provide services, accommodation or facilities."
The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment, in the sense that it goes to the root of the interpretation of the Bill. As the noble Lord is well aware, I am very glad that the words "to a material degree" have been added to the Bill, because without them one might have had a certain number of—I do not want to say vexatious, but trivial prosecutions which would not really be justified from the point of view of the public purse or anything else, and which would cause a lot of trouble. However, the question is: how are the words "to a material degree" to be interpreted? If you do not interpret them at all, then you are going to have a lot of case law developing on what is "to a material degree". The Molony Committee itself gave an indication—it would be wrong to say that it was a definition—of what they meant in regard to similar, though not identical, words, and their indication was very similar to what I have attempted to put down as a definition in this case. I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. It is simple and clear, it carries one part of our general misdescriptions clause, and it makes clear the test of falsity is its dynamic effect on the buyer, not to abstract considerations about the falsity of the description itself. It seems to me eminently suitable and it fits into the Bill. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that as we have now reached Amendment No. 85, and he has not accepted a single Amendment, it might be an act of grace as well as of wisdom to accept this Amendment, which seems in every possible way to improve the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support this Amendment which is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood.
LORD BROWN: I am sorry to appear ungracious. May I remind the noble Baroness that I have undertaken to consider, and I hope to come back to, a number of Amendments in response to arguments that have been made. I cannot agree that this Amendment is necessary or desirable. If the Amendment were accepted the prosecution would have to prove that every false trade description was such as to be "likely to induce a purchase of goods". I think that is surely not something which the noble Baroness would like to see put into this Bill, because it would mean that a large number of people who would otherwise be prosecuted would escape prosecution. The prosecution would also have to prove that every misdescription of a service was such as to be "likely to induce acceptance of an offer to provide services". This would be an unwarrantably heavy burden. If the Amendment is intended to provide that a statement should be regarded as false to a material degree if it were proved to have induced a particular person to buy the goods or accept the offer of services, this would be still less acceptable. To make the issue depend on the effect produced on a single individual, who might have most unreasonable expectations, would be quite unjustifiable.
What is false to a material degree is a matter which must be left to be determined by the courts in the light of the circumstances of each case which comes before them, and I agree that there will be some Case Law built up around this. The ordinary test will apply, of whether the degree of falsity would be likely to be material to the average buyer in the circumstances, to the reasonable man. I am sure that it would be a mistake to substitute some manufactured criterion. The words "to a material degree" are a reference to goods and not to the state of mind of the person buying them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: They are a reference to the trade description of the goods.
LORD BROWN: I am sorry they are a reference to the trade description of the goods, and not to the state of mind of the person buying them. It would be very dangerous to introduce this Amendment, and with great reluctance (because the Committee is desirous of my accepting at least one) I still ask the

651
noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I rather suspected that the noble Lord would treat this Amendment as being too limiting, and I quite accept that what the Molony Committee gave as a general indication does not necessarily make a complete definition. I should have liked the noble Lord to give some further guidance as to what is meant by "to a material degree", but if he considers that this is impossible I still feel very strongly that we should stick to the words "to a material degree", in the belief that we know generally what they mean even though we cannot define them in detail. I hope that in the course of this Bill the Government will not be shaken out of standing by the words "to a material degree". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the Committee leaves Clause 37, I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend a question which has troubled me all through the course of this Bill. It is whether the word "advertisement" includes editorial comment on consumer goods. As the Committee are aware, most newspapers to-day (and the same is true of magazines) carry women's pages which give very full descriptions of goods, including the price and where they can be bought—though I do not include sponsored supplements in newspapers, but only the editorial matter. These, of course, are closely linked with consumer advertising, and in fact are a very important adjunct of information to the consumer.
I imagine that the Government might find themselves in the position of wishing to impose certain orders on advertising, on show cards and so on, but finding that the goods were also being described, equally fully, in these supplements and women's pages. I should like an assurance that they would not try to impose similar requirements on the editors of these newspapers and magazines, as this would appear to be a de
652
finite infringement of the liberty of the Press.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I add just a few remarks to that point, because I think it is one that I made on Clause 1, and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said he would look at in broad terms. I was talking then about journalists' applying false descriptions as people in the course of a trade or business. I am not quite certain of the right way of dealing with this matter. I know that many people feel that it is anomalous to have a Bill which deals with advertisements in a way in which they have not been dealt with before—and, of course, this is part of the major purpose of the Bill: the application of a trade description in advertisements—without defining the word "advertisement" except in this rather negative way. I should like the noble Lord to consider this point. I will not say more than that about it.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that it would be highly undesirable if we were to have a number of lawsuits arising where newspaper proprietors were prosecuted for what had appeared in the editorial parts of their newspapers. I think this should be avoided. I am not saying that it is not possible to disguise advertisements in the form of editorial comment, because this is a matter with which, in my other capacity, I have to deal quite a bit—and so do the Press Council. But I think it would be highly undesirable if journalists in the course of their ordinary activities in connection with the business of newspapers were liable to prosecution for giving false trade descriptions. There are two ways of dealing with this problem: either define the word "advertising," or define the words, "in the course of trade or business".
LORD BROWN: I am advised that the term "advertising" does not cover editorial comment. I imagine—and this is my own contribution—that the question of intention would come into it, and whether the comment is or is not paid for by somebody who wishes to sell goods. I take note of what noble Lords have said. I will explore the question a little to see whether we have it quite clear.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: May I suggest to my noble friend that this

653
leaves the whole thing open to complete and absolute abuse?
LORD BROWN: I do not think my noble friend understood me. I am advised conclusively that "advertising" does not include editorial comment.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: That is what I am saying. If you allow unlimited and unrestricted editorial comment of the kind my noble friend Lord Strabolgi was talking about, this would defeat the object of the clause.
LORD BROWN: I really do not think there will be much difficulty about this if the editorial comment is not paid for by the advertiser. If it is inspired by payment, then I imagine it would cease to be editorial comment and would become advertising. But I will get the whole matter defined.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Could my noble friend give me guidance on what attitude would be taken, for example, to a firm's public relations hand-out which was inaccurate in this manner? This is material which has certainly been paid for by the firm and issued by their agents, the public relations firm, but which has been adapted as news by the editor of some newspaper.
LORD BROWN: I am now being asked to interpret the words of the Bill. I imagine this would be advertising, the definition of which includes catalogues, circulars and price lists referring to goods which are for sale.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to my noble friend and we look forward to returning to this matter at a later stage. This is a very important point indeed. I worked for many years for a woman's magazine with a large circulation. It is sometimes difficult to draw a dividing line. You can get a sponsored booklet on, say, knitting, which is entirely paid for by the wool manufacturers and is tantamount to an advertisement. On the other hand, you can get a "pull out" which is purely editorial presentation and which is not paid for or linked in any way with the advertiser, and which may be just as full of description as the advertisements themselves. I think it essential that the freedom of the Press should be maintained over this, and that
654
they should know exactly where they are when this Bill becomes law. I am grateful to my noble friend for his offer to look at it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I say something? What the noble Lord has just said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, emphasises the need to get a definition of "advertising".
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Continuation, for three years, of Orders in Council requiring indication of origin]:
9.18 p.m.
BARONESS PLUMMER BARONESS PLUMMER moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out, "except in so far as it requires any goods to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation". The noble Baroness said: This Amendment would remove an addition which has been made to the Bill since it was previously introduced in your Lordships' House. The effect of the addition is to bring all the Orders on origin marking to an end in so far as they refer to imports, as soon as the Bill comes into force, instead of three years later at the same time as the other provisions of the Orders. I would ask the Government most earnestly to reconsider this matter. Many of these Orders have been in force, for over thirty years, and a great deal of thought will be needed by all interests concerned on how they should be replaced by new orders made under this Bill. To remove the importation provisions of the old Orders straight away cannot but prejudice this consideration.
I am particularly concerned about several orders in the agriculture field. May I take eggs as an example. It is an easy matter to make sure that eggs are marked with the country of origin at the time of importation, but if marking is not required at that stage it is clearly difficult to enforce origin marking at a later stage, and it is easy for foreign eggs to be put on sale unstamped. There are also the Orders relating to meat, and in particular ham and bacon. The markings required on carcases of meat are of a considerable extent. The idea, of course, is to ensure that some part of the marking survives when the carcase is cut up. How much easier it is to check

655
the marking at the point of import than at the time of some subsequent sale in this country. It may also be that there would be greater reluctance on the part of those importing to this country to apply the marks to carcases if they realised that it was no longer an offence for unmarked carcases to be imported.
I am not suggesting that these Orders do not require review. It may well be that in some cases different forms of marking, or indeed none at all, would be sensible. But this would need a good deal of thought and consultation with all those who would be affected. I submit this cannot be done for all these Orders in six months. I think it would be far better to leave them all exactly as they are until the three-year period is over. If the Board of Trade and the other Departments concerned could bring forward replacement Orders more quickly, they would still have the power to revoke the existing Order under Clause 40(3). There seems, therefore, no case for removing the importation provisions of all the old Orders by a provision in this Bill. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 18, leave out from ("1926") to ("or") in line 20.—(Baroness Plummer.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I gather that he will, and in that case I shall not say more than that I fully support it.
LORD BROWN: We had thought that since any Orders eventually made under Clause 8 of the Bill to replace these old Orders under the 1926 Act would not require an indication of origin at the time of importation, it was unnecessary that the old Orders should maintain such a requirement for the rest of their life. Having listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, I now believe that there is indeed a case for not abandoning this feature of the old Orders so quickly. Without necessarily going along with all her remarks, I can see that there may be problems which would take time to resolve. There is in particular the point that the precise method of marking prescribed under an existing Order may
656
be one which it is not really practicable to apply except where the goods are being produced or prepared for shipment. If it is eventually decided that such goods should be subject to a new marking Order under Clause 8, it may then be possible to prescribe some other form of marking which can conveniently be applied after the goods have reached this country. Or, if the importers would still find it more convenient to have the overseas suppliers mark the goods, it is conceivable that they may wish to incorporate provisions in their new contracts to achieve this, instead of simply relying upon the exporter, because he knows it is a condition of importation under the law of the United Kingdom. Even though it may be perfectly practicable to set up these new arrangements in the course of the next three years, it could well be difficult to set them up by the time the Bill comes into force.
I am therefore quite willing to accept the noble Lady's Amendment in principle, but I think that if we do so a further consequential Amendment may be necessary, for certain technical reasons, concerning enforcement of the requirements. If the noble Baroness will be kind enough to withdraw her Amendment, I will undertake to put forward at Report stage another Amendment which achieves precisely the effect she desires, and deals as necessary with the consequential point I have in mind. I wish I could have made a similar speech to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. Unfortunately I have been unable to do so, and I apologise for that.
BARONESS PLUMMER: I will willingly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Short title and commencement]:
9.25 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Consumer Protection" and insert "Trade Descriptions". The noble Lord said: As I suggested on Second Reading, I do not think the present Title to the Bill is accurate. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Brown said the remarks

657
made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and myself about the present Title struck a chord of deep sympathy in him. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, when she said that the term "consumer protection" belongs to a bygone era, and that we have now moved on to consumer education, with the trade and consumer organisations all working together. The words "consumer protection" do not apear at all in the Preamble to the Bill nor in any of its clauses, except this one.
The title appears to me to be rather slanted, as it gives the impression that there is a continuous state of conflict between the trader and the consumer. The present Title is not fair to the great majority of honest manufacturers and retailers whose interest it is, and must be, to satisfy their customers. I much prefer the Title of the previous Bill, introduced in the last Parliament, which your Lordships will remember was the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, because this at least had the words "Trade Descriptions" in the Title, which is what the Bill is all about. It seems to me to be most unfortunate that a Bill like this, which deals with false or misleading descriptions, should itself bear a Title which is a misdescription. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 23, leave out ("Consumer Protection") and insert ("Trade Descriptions").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, may recall that when the previous Bill was introduced I had an Amendment down to leave out the words "Consumer Protection" and let the Bill be described as the Trade Descriptions Bill. This seems to be what the Bill is all about. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, it is not only the consumer who has to be protected, nor do all the clauses deal with consumer protection. Admittedly they do not all deal with trade description directly either, but the Bill is in the tradition of trade descriptions and merchandise marks. In the course of the Second Reading debate I suggested that it might be better to find a name which would reflect the purpose of giving protection all round in the way of fair trade, and to call it the Fair Trading Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is now prepared to
658
accept the Title, Trade Descriptions Bill, my noble friends and I on this side would support him.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I do not feel strongly about this point, but I think it would be a mistake to leave out the word "consumer". If we have only "Trade Descriptions", a vast proportion of the people we are hoping to help with this Bill will not realise that it is for their benefit. I agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that we do not want to set up any conflict between the trader, the consumer and the manufacturer. On the other hand, if we have a Title which has no mention of the consumer, in the eyes of the ordinary public it will be another Bill like the Merchandise Marks Act and the Weights and Measures Act, which they will think has no personal relation to them. This legislation has a personal relation to everybody who is concerned with buying, selling and manufacturing, and though I am not opposed to putting in "Trade Descriptions". I think it would be a mistake to take out "Consumer Protection". Therefore I oppose the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
LORD CAWLEY: I have only one objection to this Amendment. I think it would be sure to cause confusion between the Trade Marks Act and a Trade Description Act, and "Consumer Protection" is quite a different name.
LORD BROWN: The fact that I expressed my sympathy with the words "Trade Descriptions" on Second Reading has been referred to, and I stick to that; but in spite of my own personal preference I am in the peculiar position of saying that I must advise your Lordships to reject the Amendment. Frankly, some of my colleagues in the Government prefer the other name. Owing to the circumstances in which we have rather had to rush this Bill through, I am in the situation of having to say that I do not desert my original expression of opinion about the Title of the Bill, but that I am unable to accept the Amendment. I am sorry to put your Lordships in this position, but it is unavoidable, so far as I am concerned, at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be unfortunate if the noble Lord were to reject this Amendment out of hand, because it might cause a Division

659
at this time of night and bring the matter to a test at a time when the Committee is not as full as it might be. I think it would be unfortunate to have a conflict on this at the end of a long stage when we have been considering a great many points. I do not think the noble Lord has fully made up his mind about this question of the Title and therefore I would counsel the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not to press the Amendment at the present time. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brown, will think more about it between now and the next stage.
LORD BROWN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said what I did just now because I did not want to get into a false position over this matter. I am grateful for the advice, and I willingly undertake to consider the matter.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful for my noble friend's undertaking to consider the matter. Perhaps he will apply his mind to some kind of compromise whereby both he and I, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, can be satisfied, perhaps by calling it something like the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions) Bill. Having put out the thought, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

  ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BODIES
  ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BODIES