Sitting of 31 January 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Monsanto Europe Company (Ruabon)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Monsanto Europe Company about its decision to declare redundant one-fifth of the labour force at the Company's Ruabon factory.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have had a full and detailed discussion with the chairman and two of his senior colleagues
    Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the apprehension felt in my constituency about the continued well-being of this works? Is he aware that while his answer will be welcomed, nothing would be more reassuring for a works which has seen its labour force reduced from 2,000 some years ago to just under 1,000 today than to have
    2
    considerable investment by the company linked with Government grant assistance for the development of a new product line at Ruabon? Did the Secretary of State discuss the possibility of this?
    Mr. Thomas: I discussed the matter fully with the chairman and his colleagues who made it clear, as I believe they made it clear to the employees at Cefn Mawr, when they met them later, that following the closure of the two loss-making units in question, the works would in future be viable. I understood the apprehensions that existed and I was happy to hear from the firm that there was no policy decision to close the works in the immediate or long-term future.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision about the projected reclamation of the Dee Estuary.
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to give his approval to the Dee crossing scheme
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I have told the House previously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have this matter under review. We hope to announce our preliminary conclusions as soon as possible
    Mr. Tilney: As my right hon. and learned Friend said last year that he

    3
    hoped to make an announcement early this year, will he bear in mind that this multi-purpose scheme has been under consideration for a decade now, and that there is massive unemployment in the North-West. Is it not time that such a scheme, which is likely to pay for itself and to improve the amenities of the North West, was decided upon?
    Mr. Thomas: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but this is a very large multi-purpose project of great complexity. It needs to be examined with the greatest care, even before a preliminary conclusion can be reached
    Mr. Jones: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman please stop dithering and say "Yes" or "No" and put us out of our misery on this issue? Is he not aware that Humberside has been granted its bridge across the Humber? Is he not further aware that the impression getting around now is that he has been pushed around by the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Thomas: This is a decision which is not taken by me alone. It is a matter of considerable complexity, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that each aspect needs to be evaluated separately and all aspects evaluated collectively. I can assure him that there is no question of dithering. We wish to reach a preliminary conclusion as soon as possible.

    Secondary Education (Bedwellty)
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the expansion of facilities for comprehensive secondary education in the part of Monmouthshire comprising the Bedwellty Constituency in the period 1972 to 1974
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is primarily a matter for the Monmouthshire Local Education Authority. Apart from the Bedwas area the Authority has no plans for reorganising secondary education in the Bedwellty constituency by 1974.
    Mr. Kinnock: While thanking the Secretary of State for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that Risca is part of the Bedwellty constituency and that the local education authority is not altogether happy with the insistence by his Department on an alternative site for the Risca comprehensive school? In view of that, will he give a firmer answer
    4
    today than he gave me on 17th January when he said that the school was included in the 1972–73 building programme and tell me now that he guarantees that the school will be started in Risca by the end of the financial year 1972–73 so that the fears in my constituency can be put at rest?
    Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a firm answer today. I will look into this and write to the hon. Gentleman giving as detailed an answer as I can.

    Paediatric Services (West Wales)
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether the recommendations contained in the Interim Report of the Working Party on Children in Hospital in Wales are being acted upon in planning the future of paediatric services in West Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Developments in the paediatric services planned for West Wales by the Welsh Hospital Board are consistent with the Interim Report. This report was given wide circulation and comments have been invited for consideration by the Board's Working Party
    Mr. Edwards: But is my hon. Friend aware that the Working Party urged that a simple population-based norm was inappropriate as a guide to the appointment of paediatricians in Wales, that centralisation makes it difficult to maintain home contact and that travelling time and distance should be taken into account in planning services? Is this being done at Withybush? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the report is published?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: First, the final report of the Working Party will not be presented to the Welsh Hospital Board before May. Secondly, as I think my hon. Friend is aware, an application by the Board for permission to appoint an additional consultant in paediatrics in West Wales to be based at Carmarthen has been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Consultant Establishments and a decision is awaited.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman resist any temptation to cling to a rigid policy of localising specialist services at the base hospitals only, or

    5
    mainly at the base hospitals? Does he accept that there are areas in Mid-Wales where patients, their friends and families have to travel between 70 and 80 miles to get to the hospital which, with public transport services as they are, sometimes involves more than a day's travelling? This is a real problem of deprivation.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I appreciate that this is a very great problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but, as I have said, professional opinion opposes single-handed appointments in the paediatric specialty, and it is thought that by basing the second consultant at Carmarthen the best use can be made of available resources while at the same time providing the most satisfactory service for the area as a whole.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the employment prospects in Wales for 1972.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Employment prospects in 1972 should improve as a result of Government measures to stimulate output.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, with only 4,000 new jobs created last year, the situation could hardly be worse? However, will he give an assurance that if unemployment in Wales rises to 60,000 in the next few months he will resign his seat in the Cabinet, and will he tell us whether that will be in February or in March?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates from what he has read, there is great anticipation of guided growth in the economy this year and, with the co-operation of all those interested, there is no reason why Wales should not benefit.
    Mr. John Morris: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that he is speaking like Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up? How does he intend to explain to the people of Wales why his Government's policy of switching from investment grants to investment allowances has been a miserable failure? Is he aware that in Mid-Glamorgan and
    6
    Port Talbot average male unemployment is running at 8·9 per cent.? At Cymmer, there are 245 men unemployed—one in five of the insured male population.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware of the unemployment figures in Wales, which I consider to be deplorable in human, social and economic terms. But the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the last Labour Administration, will appreciate that the policy of deflation pursued by his Government is at the base of many of the difficulties we are facing today. That is why the present Government have pursued a massive policy of reflation, the benefits of which we shall start to see in 1972.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that his policy has collapsed around him, that there are 20,000 people under 25 years of age unemployed in Wales and that as a result of his policies unemployment has increased by 60 per cent.? Is it not about time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stood on his own two feet and accepted responsibility for the dismal failure of his policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman should accept his share of responsibility, because he was a member of the Cabinet during six years of economic stagnation, rising import price controls and runaway inflation, which we inherited.

    Secretary of State (Newspaper Articles)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to write his next article in a Welsh newspaper in his official capacity.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am always ready to consider requests from editors of Welsh newspapers to contribute articles.
    Mr. John: In the next article which he writes, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman leave aside the brainless bromides which normally litter his efforts and tell the 56,000 unemployed Welsh people when they may expect jobs, why new job creation is down to one-third of its 1971 level and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer's miracle, which the Secretary of State was proclaiming in November, 1970, would happen "any week now", has not happened?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the many measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1971 involving massive reflationary activity—
    Mr. John Morris: Mr. Micawber
    Mr. Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the alliterative nature of his well-prepared supplementary question. I do not intend to be complacent about the situation, but the question which I was asked concerned articles in newspapers. The key to prosperity is industrial confidence, and it is essential to say loud and clear—hon. Members opposite refrain from saying it—that the outlook in terms of production and sales is brighter now than it has been for a long time.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the two great Welsh newspapers would be a great deal more readable if they were not half filled with the turgid outpourings of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas)?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir
    Mr. Fred Evans: In his next article, will the Secretary of State explain to the people of Wales why the cheerful optimism that things were on the upturn is at variance with the recent survey undertaken by major industrialists who foresee no great expansion in employment and production in their industries?
    Mr. Thomas: The major industrialists forecast at the beginning of this year that 1972 would be a year of growth.

    Fair Rents
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales what alternatives were considered by his Department before deciding on the proposals for fair rents in Wales as contained in the Housing Finance Bill.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Government's objectives in relation to the reform of housing finance which were set out in the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" can satisfactorily be met only by the interrelated proposals embodied in the Housing Finance Bill.
    Mr. Roderick: I do not accept that as a reply to my Question. Is the hon.
    8
    Gentleman aware that the Prices and Incomes Board rejected the concept of fair rents some years ago? Now we are embarking on legislation which will lead to a doubling of rents for council house tenants and the making of profits on council house rents. I should like the Minister to explain, if he can, why Scotland should have different legislation, based on historic costs, which will lead to lower rents for council house tenants.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions. In the time available, I can answer only one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the others. In marked contrast to the previous Administration, who, after six years' consideration, totally failed to deal with the acknowledged problem of local authority housing finance, we have formulated and presented our Bill within 12 months of taking office.
    Mr. Roderick: On a point of order. I am concerned that the Minister did not reply to my original Question. I asked him what alternatives had been considered.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. George Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us and the Welsh people why Wales is getting a more raw deal than Scotland in the matter of rents, why there are different proposals for Scotland compared with England and why there is no Minister from the Welsh Office serving on the Committee considering the Housing Finance Bill to deal with the question of rents in Wales?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Thursday last week he would have heard the Leader of the House answer that question. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said.

    House Building (Special Problems)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he has examined the financial position created for Welsh local authorities who have special house construction problems.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Where Welsh local authorities have special housing construction problems the proposals contained in

    9
    the Housing Finance Bill will alleviate their burden since subsidies will be directed to the authorities which have the greatest need.
    Mr. McBride: I do not believe a word of that. Nor do the Welsh people. Is the Minister aware that I was dealing with a specific project? I draw his attention to the lower Swansea valley. Will he make Government finance available to the local authority for regional development in the derelict areas of the Swansea valley? Is he aware that the cost of rehabilitation to development standards will result in too high a burden to be borne by Swansea City Council? Lastly, is he aware that this project would also provide employment for the unemployed in Swansea?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Member will write to me about the details I will answer him. I cannot be expected to know the details of a particular housing problem unless the hon. Gentleman has given me notice. I will answer him if he writes to me. The housing cost yardstick which is used as the main basis for the payment of subsidies for new house building is designed to take into account any special house construction problems known to the local authorities, and it is kept continuously under review.

    Bristol Channel (Pollution)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what schemes and works will be carried out in the next five years, and at what approximate cost, to deal with problems of pollution by sewage disposal or by industrial effluent or waste in the vicinity of Barry, Rhoose, Sully and adjacent places along the South Wales coast of the Bristol Channel; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: There are a number of schemes in hand or in course of preparation which will improve domestic sewage and industrial effluent outfall conditions in the Channel in the area or adjacent to the places mentioned. I am circulating the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gower: Has my hon. Friend noted the many expressions of concern about these matters, particularly about the state of the sea water along the coast
    10
    mentioned, and will he consider this matter with tremendous urgency?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the proper concern of my hon. Friend on this subject. As far as the medical implications of Mr. William Smith's report are concerned, my officials have been in touch with the medical officer of Penarth, who has indicated that to his knowledge there have been no cases of infection contracted from bathing in the sea at Penarth.
    Following are the details:
    The following schemes are in hand or in course of preparation to improve domestic sewage and industrial effluent outfall conditions in the Bristol Channel in the area or adjacent to the places mentioned in the Question.
    SCHEMES ALREADY UNDER WAY

    1. Newport County Borough Schemes to provide full treatment to replace existing crude sewage discharges from approximately 17 outfalls—estimated cost £4·5 million.

    2. Penybont Joint Sewerage Board's project to provide full treatment to replace the existing crude sewage discharge to the River Ogmore and to construct a new long sea outfall—estimated cost £7 million.

    SCHEMES IN COURSE OF PREPARATION WHICH SHOULD START WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS
    3. (i) Cardiff City Council's and Penarth Urban District Council's joint proposal for a long sea outfall at Lavernock to replace the existing outfall. It is proposed that all of Penarth's present outfalls then be diverted into the new long outfall. Estimated cost in excess of £1 million.
    (ii) Barry Borough Council's proposed sea outfall at Cold Knapp to replace the existing outfall. The total scheme estimated to cost £2·6 million.
    (iii) A new outfall at Port Talbot to replace existing estuarial discharges and to provide for the disposal of future industrial wastes. Estimated cost £2 million. (A joint reconstruction scheme between Port Talbot B.C., Neath B.C. and Neath R.D.C. which includes a long sea outfall at Baglan has recently been completed at a cost of approximately £3·5 million; the new Baglan B.P. Complex discharges its trade waste through this outfall).

    Cement Quarry (Cefn Mawr)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what communications he has received about the circumstances in which planning permission was given for the extension of the Portland Cement Company's quarry at Cefn Mawr in Flint-shire; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: We have received three letters of protest. I am having inquiries made into this matter and will reply as soon as these are complete.
    Sir A. Meyer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but would he urge upon the planning authorities in Wales not to rest content with the existing inadequate statutory provisions for consultation but to go out and tell people, whose property or whose livelihood may be affected, of planning decisions, and will he keep in very close touch with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment who are, as I understand it from the debate last week, about to issue a circular of guidance to authorities in England on this subject?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I know that this is a problem. Without going into details at this stage I would say that I have been given to understand that the local parish council was consulted in this case as well as other bodies and that there was no objection to the application at the time.

    Mid-Wales
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement concerning Mid-Wales
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I outlined the Government's policy to the Welsh Grand Committee last year. I have recently announced my willingness to assist the development of the growth towns by considering applications from the authorities concerned for grants under Section 7 of the Local Employment Act on a wider basis than hitherto
    Mr. Morgan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, since his Government withdrew the rural development board for Wales, in so far as any comprehensive plan for growth in Mid-Wales is concerned the Government have exhibited complete bankruptcy and sterility of policy? Does he also accept that his statement a few weeks ago to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association that he would decide on the designation of new growth towns when it was established that Newtown was financially viable is a very indefinite yardstick justifying delay for 20 to 40 years?
    Mr. Thomas: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench opposite? I do not accept the first part of his supplementary question. If he were to read the statement I made to the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April he would see that I formulated a definite policy, much of which was a policy which was laid down by the previous Administration which I have adopted. The other day, to the Development Association, I was able to announce an important and, indeed, unique concession to Mid-Wales—the enlargement of the basis of Section 7 of the Local Employment Act grants.
    Mr. Roderick: Would the Secretary of State accept that he left the Mid-Wales Development Corporation members in considerable doubt as to his intentions in this matter? He would not accept that the expansion of the activities of Newtown corporation should go ahead immediately. Will he revise that opinion about their standing on their own two feet as he is expecting growth towns to do?
    Mr. Thomas: I made the position quite clear to the Development Association. I said that I did not rule out the possibility of extending the corporation's remit at some future date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—but that I had no immediate plans in that direction. My intention was to see whether the Corporation in Newtown could be judged a success.

    Infrastructure
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional expenditure on infrastructure schemes in Wales has been allocated for the years 1971–72 and 1972–73; and how many additional jobs this has created.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Details of the £21 million programme to be undertaken mainly in the period to March, 1973, were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 18th October, 1971. A high proportion of the further £9 million allocated for trunk and principal road schemes will also be spent in this period. As regards additional employment I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 29th November, 1971, to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John.)—[Vol. 827, c. 4.]
    Mr. Jones: May we take it that if the Secretary of State is not able to tell us the figures of the additional employment being created he will cease blowing his own trumpet by publishing these figures at frequent intervals, and, above all, that he will bear in mind that the people of Wales will expect him in their interests to resist any further weakening in regional policy as suggested by the Prime Minister last week? If there is any further weakening of regional policy through the allocation of I.D.C.s the people of Wales will expect at least the resignation of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Thomas: That supplementary question goes a little wider than the main Question, which refers to infrastructure. The fact that an additional £30 million will be spent, or that its expenditure will be accelerated, in Wales, means inevitably that employment will be provided.
    Mr. Jones: How long will it take?
    Mr. Kinnock: When?
    Mr. Thomas: These schemes have only just started and, undoubtedly, there will be in 1972–73 a period of acceleration of a number of schemes. Many of them will be dealt with by local authorities. It is impossible for one to be precise about the number of jobs, but if we accelerate expenditure by £30 million, inevitably that will provide employment.
    Mr. Jones: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Straying Animals
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made by the working party which he set up to examine the problems caused by straying animals, particularly in South Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The working party has met eight times and has received written evidence from 83 bodies. Investigation is continuing.
    Mr. Probert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the Bill passed last year rectified a serious anomaly in the law dealing with stray animals, the position in South Wales is still serious and
    14
    the public are awaiting the results of the working party, and indeed the Government's proposals, to put an end to this continuing, vexatious problem?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have chaired six of the eight meetings of the working party, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a complicated matter which is different in almost every part of South Wales. I am sure that he would be the first to give credit to the Government for being the first Government to tackle the problem.
    Mr. McBride: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what solution he offered to the Swansea City Council, on the occasion of his recent visit, to the problem of the large number of apparently owner-less horses which are causing depredation?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I had a most interesting conversation with the Mayor and Council of Swansea on the subject of horses in Swansea. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know the details, I shall be glad to go into them with him later.

    Cwmbran New Town (Unemployment)
    Mr. Abseasked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the results of his review of the unemployment situation in Cwmbran New Town; and whether he will now include Cwmbran New Town within the Welsh development area
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No decision on future status has been taken. I agree that the unemployment situation is serious but, as I have previously said, a decision on Cwmbran cannot be taken in isolation
    Mr. Abse: Is the Secretary of State aware that his inertia and dalliance are causing despair in Cwmbran, where hundreds of men are leaving the town to seek employment in England or elsewhere? What is the rationale of investing millions in a new town and taking no action to rescue the new town from the unemployment which, while he is dallying, is increasing? There have been redundancies in Panteg Steel Works and Guest Keen, and further redundancies affecting the new town will result from the British Steel, Stewart and Lloyd, announcement of closure in Newport. Is he prepared to do practically nothing?

    15
    How much longer must we wait for the decision on whether this will be a development area?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Decisions on the status of individual areas, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, cannot be taken without regard to the situation elsewhere, and the claims of other areas in Wales have to be taken into account. I assure the hon. Gentleman that decisions will be taken as soon as possible
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if Cwmbran is made a development area and the efforts of the Government are no greater in the new town than they are in the present development areas, he will be adding nil to nil, and the equation, by my arithmetic, will still be nil?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is an interesting observation, because the special development area has a considerable differential and attraction to industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not as if industry is moving into other places and not going into the development areas. When there is—as one has every expectation that there will be—an upsurge in investment, then the special development areas should benefit greatly
    Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State in answer to Questions this afternoon has four times said "as soon as possible". Will he please tell us when he expects to be able to help Cwmbran in its grievous difficulties?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

    Secondary Schools
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many secondary schools for children aged 11 to 16 years will be functioning in Wales when the school-leaving age is raised.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is expected that there will be 101 maintained secondary schools, for pupils aged 11–16, in Wales in September, 1972.
    Mr. Roberts: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, but does he agree that when the school-leaving age
    16
    is raised, these schools might face special problems in having no sixth form available for pupils and in the provision of a counselling service? Will he consider consulting local education authorities on the provision of additional resources to meet this important commitment?
    Mr. Thomas: The local education authorities and voluntary bodies concerned are well aware of the problem. It is a matter for them. If they think that additional help is necessary, I have no doubt that they will get in touch with me, and I shall certainly have sympathetic regard to what they say.

    Redundancies (Wrexham)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to alleviate the situation in the Wrexham constituency where nearly 400 redundancies were declared from two factories immediately after the Christmas holiday.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The full range of development area assistance is already available and I am confident that Wrexham will continue to attract new investment.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last election I was assuring the electorate of Wrexham, with good reason and with some pride, that Wrexham, which is in the Welsh development area, was rapidly reaching a state of economic self-sufficiency; but that now, for no good reason except the policies of the Government, I am obliged to tell my constituents that the position at Wrexham is bleaker than it has been for many years? When does he expect the steps to which he has referred to take effect?
    Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman knows, since June, 1970, industrial building amounting to 700,000 square feet has been approved in the Wrexham area. I well appreciate the anxieties in the area when the 400 redundancies were declared, but I am happy to say that other firms in the area are now recruiting labour.

    Bedwas and Machen U.D.C. (Housing Finance)
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what correspondence he has received from Bedwas and Machen

    17
    Urban District Council concerning the Housing Finance Bill; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Clerk of the Urban District Council has informed us that the council has resolved not to implement certain provisions of the Housing Finance Bill when these become law. The letter is being acknowledged.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Minister of State recognise that the silly Housing Finance Bill has induced otherwise law-abiding and reasonable citizens on the Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council to contemplate ignoring the law? Will he not reconsider the wisdom of trying to enact such legislation when democratically elected representatives in touch with council house tenants in the area talk of the Bill as complete nonsense and a farce and will not be bullied into operating it?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not think that I should comment on what is clearly intended as a party political gesture at a time when the Housing Finance Bill is still under discussion.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend condemn in the strongest possible terms any repeated attempts of hon. Members opposite to encourage local authorities to flout the law of the land?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: That will be a matter for them.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the organisations he has met in Wales since June, 1970, with direct involvement in the unemployment situation.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: A large number of organisations I meet have some involvement in the economic situation and related issues of employment and unemployment. It would be impracticable to list them all.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that both the trade unions and the C.B.I. have strongly condemned the Government policy of abandoning investment grants? Will he explain how long the "at a stroke" referred to by the Prime Minister in June, 1970, is intended to take?
    Mr. Thomas: Both the C.B.I. and T.U.C. in Wales, who have met me on several occasions, have put forward suggestions, many of which have been carried into effect by the Government. I am looking forward to future meetings with them. I am meeting the T.U.C. on 11th February and representatives of the Welsh Council two days before that.

    Poisons (Illegal Dumping)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations of illegal dumping of poisons on tips in Wales he has undertaken; and what evidence of such practices has come to light.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The investigation of illegal tipping of any type of material is primarily the responsibility of the local planning authority. The Government are not satisfied with the present arrangements and urgent consideration is being given to proposals for a new authorisation procedure.
    Mr. John: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tipping, whether legal or illegal, of toxic waste on two quarries in my constituency controlled by Purle Brothers has created pollution sufficient to cause the death of cattle? Does he not agree that that is a serious and urgent matter for investigation? Will he undertake, on behalf of the Government, early legislation to halt the tipping of toxic waste and in the meantime issue a guide line from the Welsh Office to local authorities to control this grave menace to the Welsh countryside?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: As I said in my answer to the original Question, the Government are giving urgent consideration to new authorisation procedures. Welsh Office officials gave advice to the local planning authority in August, 1970, on the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, following which Glamorgan County Council secured the agreement of the contractors involved that tipping at the sites would stop.

    Industrialisation
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he has estimated the future industrialisation needs of Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The need to expand the industrial base of Wales is self-evident
    Mr. McBride: That answer is a spit in the face to the people of Wales. Is the Secretary of State aware that the short-term industrial needs of Wales require an intensive boost in terms of the attraction of industry to Wales to absorb 56,000 jobless? Is he further aware that we on this side of the House, and the people of Wales, look to him to put this matter before the Cabinet at long last, and that we want his assurance that he will do so? Lastly, could I emphasise the seriousness of the situation in Wales by saying that in the great city of Swansea six people are chasing every vacancy? What a commentary on his Government's policy!
    Mr. Thomas: The Question asks me to estimate the future industrialisation needs of Wales. I did not intend my answer in any way to be a spit in the face, as the hon. Gentleman described it, to anybody. A forecasting exercise is unnecessary since there is no doubt that the need for new industry in Wales will continue for a long time to come.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: If the Secretary of State is confident that growth in Wales is imminent as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement some months ago, will he now announce the erection of some advance factories in areas of high unemployment in Wales, such as my own, which is badly in need of industrial expansion? If he has all this confidence which he has implied today, why does he not do something about it?
    Mr. Thomas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have made many announcements about advance factories in Wales —[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—I made an announcement about advance factories last year. The question of advance factories is, strictly, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

    Hospital Accommodation (South-East Glamorgan)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent he will make special arrangements, in cases in-
    20
    volving the need for long or fairly long periods of treatment in hospital, for patients resident at Barry, Rhoose, Sully, Dinas Powis, and Wenvoe, or in adjoining areas of South-East Glamorgan, to ensure that such patients may be in hospitals reasonably near their homes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In planning the services for these areas, the Welsh Hospital Board is taking full account of the principle that long-stay patients should be in hospitals as near as possible to their homes.
    Mr. Gower: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that the concentration of surgery for consultants in district general hospitals, such as the new university hospital at the Heath, Cardiff, has created new social problems, particularly for relatives and next-of-kin, and will he persuade or influence the Welsh Hospital Board to reappraise the whole situation?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Discussions on this very matter are continuing at the moment between officers of the Welsh Hospital Board and the local general practitioners.

    Road Accidents (Flintshire)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were killed and injured in road accidents in Flintshire during the year 1971.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Forty-three persons were killed and 1,290 were injured.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this tragic total is a further incentive to press on with the improvement of the two new main east-west roads through Flintshire which are primarily responsible for this appalling tragedy?
    Mr. Thomas: Yes. I agree that all figures related to road accidents are tragic. There was a slight decrease in total casualties compared with 1970, but there was a slight increase in fatalities. In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I am pressing ahead with plans to provide more dual carriageways in Flintshire, particularly on the A55, where schemes covering a further 16 miles are being prepared.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now request the Welsh Council to make a further more detailed and more comprehensive study of the likely effects of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community upon Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State not accept that he has left the House with an impression he has not assiduously examined the likely effect on Wales of entry into the E.E.C. and that he is emulating the three wise monkeys in not hearing, speaking or indeed even thinking any evil of the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Thomas: I have assiduously examined the facts, as did the Welsh Council. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Report of the Welsh Council was an extremely well-documented and valuable assessment of the effects of entry on Wales.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Monmouthshire, the area which could have been presumed to benefit most from entry into the E.E.C., 4,000 jobs have been lost in the last 14 months? Does he not agree that if the Government keep this up, we in Wales truly will go naked into Europe and that that will be the Government's fault?
    Mr. Thomas: I hope that the industrialists in Monmouthshire will appreciate that our entry into Europe will mean a very much wider market for their products.

    Local Government Reorganisation (Glamorgan)
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authorities in Wales have now supported his proposals to divide Glamorgan into three new counties; and how many local authorities now oppose them.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Four local authorities, all in South Wales, have so far indicated support for the division into three counties. Thirty-nine local authorities, including two in North Wales, have told me that they oppose the provisions for
    22
    Glamorgan in the Local Government Bill. Two of these, however, suggest a different three-way division.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State not recall that during the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill he informed the House that some 40 local authorities supported his recommendation for South-East Glamorgan, and does he not agree that obviously this is just not true, as many of us said at the time? Will he now take into consideration the wise advice that is being given to him by the local authorities in that area and revert to a two-county set-up in the County of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is difficult for me to take the advice of local authorities. Of the 39 local authorities which I mentioned in my answer, one-third are parish councils, and we must remember that the total number of local authorities in Wales is 1,076. The 39 authorities who have told me that they oppose my provisions must be compared with the 47 who supported the Cardiff Action Committee at the time of my Consultative Document.
    Mr. George Thomas: But surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not wish further to mislead the House—as he has misled us about the 40-odd authorities who supported his proposals about Glamorgan. Will he take into account the fact that there is now a massive feeling of resentment against his proposals, which will destroy effective local government in Glamorganshire? Will he look again at the situation before these matters are reached in the Standing Committee?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The matter is at the moment being considered in the Standing Committee, and this is not the time for me to say anything about it. It will be debated there. As for the figures, all I can say is that 47 local authorities supported the Cardiff Action Committee at the time of my Consultative Document.
    Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State said that 47 authorities supported him. He led the House to believe that he had been in touch with these authorities, whereas it has since been revealed that he took all his evidence from the biased Cardiff Action Committee and

    23
    had not even investigated whether the figures he gave to the House were right at the time he gave them.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: If I saw that certain local authorities had supported the Cardiff Action Committee, I was entitled to infer from that fact that they were opposed to my proposals in the Consultative Document. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I gained little support from him or from his hon. Friends, and indeed from local authorities generally, for my proposals in regard to Glamorgan in the Consultative Document. They are now trying to say that they wish to support my original proposals. At the time of the Consultative Document, they opposed them.

    Schools Closure (Coal Mining Dispute)
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to ensure that schools in Wales will remain open, in view of the strike in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is the responsibility of the local education authorities to ensure that all possible steps are taken to keep their schools open.
    Mr. Probert: Is the Secretary of State aware that he also has a direct responsibility in this matter and that at present some 50,000 Welsh school children, many of whom shortly face important examinations, are being deprived of their education because of the Government's stubborn refusal to grant a fair and just wage to the miners? Is he further aware that he would do a great service to the people of Wales if he were at this moment to advise his right hon. Friend to instruct Derek Ezra promptly to call a meeting with the miners and put before them a much-improved offer, in order to alleviate the suffering of old-age pensioners and sick people in my constituency and in South Wales as a whole?
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be in the interests of all if this unhappy strike could be settled. I agree that many people are suffering and will suffer in the future. I am satisfied that local education authorities are doing all that they can to keep schools open. When schools
    24
    are forced to close, special arrangements are generally made to assist children with their studies.
    Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the rising anger in the country about the continuance of the coal strike and the compete failure of the Government to take any action to try to bring it to an end, will not the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary of State for Wales, recognise that he has special responsibilities on this matter to make representations to the Government, especially to the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has made any special representations on this matter or whether he intends to do so this week?
    Mr. Thomas: I am fully aware of my interest in this matter—and it is a real interest. But the hon. Gentleman's question is somewhat wide of the original Question, which asked what I intended to do to ensure that schools in Wales remained open.

    SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINARY CODE)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to control the disciplinary code for solicitors.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): No, Sir. The discipline of solicitors is already controlled by the Solicitors Acts and rules made there under.
    Mr. Lewis: Why are solicitors allowed to be treated differently from ordinary industrial workers? Ordinary industrial workers also have their code, but they have, contrary to the will of the people, been legislated against. Why should solicitors be a law unto themselves?
    The Attorney-General: The answer must be that this House has made provisions under the Solicitors Act, and there are rules of practice of conduct under the Solicitors Practice Rules set up by this House. There are also general rules of professional conduct under a disciplinary committee appointed by the Master of the Rolls established by Section 46 of the Solicitors Act, 1957.

    MR. BEVERLEY NICHOLS
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the prima facie evidence submitted to him of the self-confession of Mr. Beverley Nichols that on three occasions he attempted to murder his father, he will initiate proceedings against Mr. Beverley Nichols for this admitted offence.
    The Attorney-General: No.
    Mr. Lewis: I knew what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer was before he read it. Can he give any good reason why someone who happens to be a well-known figure and rather well off appears to be able to get away with offences, whereas the ordinary working-class woman who is seen to steal a bottle of milk, or who confesses to it, is sentenced to imprisonment without question? Surely in a case like this some action could be taken, if only to deter others?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman referred me to what he said was evidence. The evidence that I received from him was a newspaper article—
    Mr. Lewis: Self-confession.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that it is in the public interest that I should ask the police and the Director to consider whether, 57 years ago, a certain gentleman put aspirins in his father's broth or even whether, 42 years ago, the same gentleman launched a garden roller at his father with intent to kill.

    STUDENTS (JURY SERVICE)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to ensure that students who suffer loss of vacation earnings as a result of being called for jury service receive appropriate financial compensation.
    The Attorney-General: A student who has taken up temporary employment during the vacation and who suffers a loss of earnings as a result of being called for jury service is entitled to financial compensation in the same way as any other employed person who suffers actual loss of earnings.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this decision is not being applied in all cases and that, according to the details of a case that I have sent the Government, a student was deprived of these earnings? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure in future that these decisions are taken on the basis that those people who do their public duty are encouraged to do so and not penalised for doing so?
    The Attorney-General: It is a question of loss of earnings which has been necessarily suffered or expenses which have been necessarily incurred. With regard to the general point raised by the hon. Gentleman, arrangements are being made that the Crown Courts should be advised that, where applications are made by students on the ground of financial hardship that they should be excused, such applications should be considered sympathetically.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: If the student referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) were able to establish his claim and were now to make it, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a sympathetic view?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly.

    LAND REGISTRATION
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Attorney-General if he will submit proposals to extend Land Registration to the whole of England and Wales.
    The Attorney-General: Extension of compulsory registration of title to land to the whole of England and Wales remains the policy of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Further extensions of that system will be made as soon as circumstances permit. It would be impracticable to extend it to all outstanding areas in one operation.
    Mr. Loughlin: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when circumstances will permit? Is he aware that the Land Registration Act, 1925, will have been on the Statute Book almost 50 years in a matter of three years? In view of the distinct advantages, especially to people purchasing their own houses, when there will be a saving of a third of

    27
    the conveyancing costs, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman speed up the process a little?
    The Attorney-General: The plan to extend compulsory registration to all the built-up areas was begun in 1964. In 1968 it was delayed or held back. But between 1968 and 1972 there has been added almost a further million properties, so that now two out of every five are subject to registration. I appreciate the importance of this issue. One of the problems is the updating of the Ordnance Survey, which also regulates the pace.

    FORENSIC PROCEEDINGS (LEGAL AID)
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Attorney-General if he will institute a review of all proceedings of a forensic character, whether taking place in courts, tribunals, arbitrations or inquiries, where there is at present no entitlement to legal aid, and consider the propriety of the extension of legal aid in the light of the results thereof.
    The Attorney-General: Priority must be given to the scheme for the better provision of legal advice and assistance for which legislation will be introduced this Session. When that scheme is in operation and the research now proceeding into the need for assistance before tribunals has made more progress, the need for a further extension of the scheme can be considered.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he bear in mind that there is a growing feeling among wide sections of the public that a somewhat unsatisfactory position obtains here in that large sums of the taxpayers' money are paid to people charged with and not infrequently found guilty of criminal offences, whereas no aid is available to the citizen whose property is affected, for example, by public improvements and compulsory purchase orders and his need to appear in respect thereof? Will my right hon. and learned Friend further have regard to the position of the preservation and amenity societies which are motivated solely by a desire to put forward matters in what they concede to be the public interest and, in the absence of aid, find themselves inhibited from doing so?
    The Attorney-General: I shall bear in mind the important points to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred. The only comment that I make is that, in the matter of legal aid in criminal cases, it has been decided and generally welcomed that there should be legal aid widely available to those persons who stand in such jeopardy. But I shall hear in mind my right hon. and learned Friend's comments.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: When will the scheme for legal advice and assistance be introduced? It was promised in the Queen's Speech. Why has there been this delay in introducing it?
    The Attorney-General: It is in the programme and it will be brought before the House shortly.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the case in Watford of Mr. Feiler, who was dismissed from a hospital by the management committee and who appealed to the regional board? His appeal was allowed, but he has crippling legal expenses to meet which he cannot afford. What can be done about such a case?
    The Attorney-General: I am afraid I do not know about the case of Mr. Feiler in Watford. However, if the hon. Gentleman sends me particulars, I will have them looked into.

    GROUND RENTS
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to abolish ground rents.
    The Attorney-General: This subject is under consideration by the Law Commission, and any decision as to legislation must await its report.
    Mr. Davidson: I am grateful for that reply. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the system which is prevalent in Lancashire whereby one person is obliged to collect ground rents from his neighbours without any reward is grossly unfair? In view of the Law Commission's criticisms of it, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he expects legislation to deal with it to come before the House?
    The Attorney-General: This is a controversial and complex matter. The Law Commission's working papers made provisional conclusions. The final report is now being prepared and is expected in 1972.

    DEVON AND SOMERSET STAGHOUNDS
    Mr. Liptonasked the Attorney-General whether, having considered the evidence submitted by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Brixton, he has now decided to institute criminal proceedings against an official of the Devon and Somerset Staghounds who shot a stag on Porlock beach last October after it had been rescued from the sea.
    The Attorney-General: I have decided that criminal proceedings should not be instituted.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I sent him all the evidence required to sustain a successful prosecution as long ago as 7th December? How much longer are these bloodthirsty louts to be allowed to pursue their filthy activities?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman sent me certain correspondence. First, consideration was given to whether there was any evidence of an offence under Section 3 of the Deer Act, but there was no evidence that a shotgun was an unauthorised weapon. Secondly, consideration was given to whether there was an offence under Section 19 of the Firearms Act, 1968. There was no evidence that it was unreasonable to shoot the stag which, according to reports, was either wounded or in danger of drowning.

PAKISTAN
Mr. Healey (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on President Bhutto's announcement that Pakistan is withdrawing from the Commonwealth.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I have read the statement issued by the Pakistan Government
30
on 30th January that they have ended Pakistan's Commonwealth membership. The statement suggests that the reason for this action is the decision of Australia and New Zealand to announce recognition of Bangladesh today and the intention of the United Kingdom to recognise Bangladesh shortly. I greatly regret this decision. It was, of course, for Pakistan to take for itself. Commonwealth membership is not a matter between Britain and individual members.
I told the House on 18th January that I would make a statement soon on the recognition of Bangladesh. I believe that our criteria for recognition are fulfilled so as to enable us to recognise Bangladesh in the very near future. This decision is in no way hostile to Pakistan, but we have to face the facts. The need now is to reconcile the parties and to try to bring about harmonious relations in the sub-continent.
Mr. Healey: First, I should like to say that we on this side of the House fully share the Foreign Secretary's regret at President Bhutto's announcement. We hope that it is not regarded there as irreversible. If the Pakistan Government should change their mind on the matter, all of us in Britain would welcome their decision so to do.
I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary four questions on the implications of President Bhutto's decision.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be the effect on the legal status of Pakistani immigrants already in this country and on the freedom of Pakistanis to come to this country in future?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this decision will have any effect on British aid programmes to Pakistan?
Thirdly, has the right hon. Gentleman had any indication of President Bhutto's policy towards Pakistan's membership of the Central Treaty Organisation and the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation?
Finally, now that we are already paying the price for recognition of Bangladesh, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will recognise Bangladesh forthwith?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that the Pakistan Government's decision is not irreversible.

31
I hope that there will be no need to disturb the legal status of Pakistanis in this country. I should like to examine all the implications and perhaps report back to the House. There are, for example, difficulties concerning naturalisation, people here on work permits, and so on. I should like to examine what can be done.
I see no reason why this decision should affect our aid programme. There is a need for development aid in both West Pakistan and East Pakistan. I think that we shall treat these matters as we have treated them before.
Concerning CENTO and S.E.A.T.O., Pakistan has not taken an active part in S.E.A.T.O. for some time, but it is still an active member of CENTO, and I hope that this will continue.
I should add that President Bhutto has asked me whether I will look in on him at Islamabad for discussions during my visit to India. I have accepted his invitation.
Mr. Kaufman: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the legislation passed in 1961 and 1962—the Prime Minister certainly will, since he personally was involved in it—regularising the situation regarding the work and citizenship of South Africans in this country when the Union of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth? Will he undertake to look at that legislation, as there is a parallel situation here, to see whether similar legislation can be introduced to protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who have made their homes in this country and do not wish to be regarded as foreigners here?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir
Mr. Fred Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the last part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question and tell the House whether we shall now recognise Bangladesh forthwith?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that the criteria are met. We have been in consultation with President Bhutto, who has asked for a little more time. I explained to him that our criteria are met. Therefore, I hope that within a very short time both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will be satisfied.
Mr. Ford: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that those of us who represent large numbers of Pakistani constituents welcome his statement on their legal status? Will he join us in asking those constituents to remain calm until such time as he has had an opportunity to study the situation and make a definitive statement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that in all circumstances the Pakistani population will remain calm. Certainly the hon. Gentleman may tell them to keep calm, because we shall look at the position with every sympathy for those who are in this country.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what degree of recognition is necessary to achieve a seat at the United Nations for Bangladesh?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This matter does not depend particularly on British recognition. It will be a matter for the United Nations to decide when there has been recognition by sufficient countries to justify United Nations membership.

NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House will have heard with deep anxiety that a number of people were killed and injured in the course of disturbances in Londonderry yesterday.
A march was organised in deliberate defiance of the legal order banning marches. The G.O.C. Northern Ireland has reported that at an appropriate point this march was stopped by the security forces and that those who were under the control of the organisers turned back. A large number of trouble-makers refused to accept the instructions of the march stewards and attacked the Army with stones, bottles, steel bars and canisters of C.S. The Army met this assault with two water cannon, C.S., and rubber bullets only. The G.O.C. has further reported that when the Army advanced to make arrests among the trouble-makers they came under fire from a block of flats and other quarters. At this stage the members of the orderly, although illegal, march were no longer in the near vicinity. The Army returned the fire directed at

33
them with aimed shots and inflicted a number of casualties on those who were attacking them with firearms and with bombs.
Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker: At the end of the statement, please. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to finish his statement.
Miss Devlin: Is it in order for the Minister to lie to this House?
Mr. Speaker: Order
Mr. Maudling: In view of the statements that have been made which publicly dispute this account, the Government have decided that it is right to set up an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the march and the incidents leading up to the casualties which resulted. We are urgently considering the most appropriate form and membership of such an inquiry and I will make a further statement to the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday saw yet another tragic day for Ireland that will prove far more traumatic than was internment? May I express our sympathy with all the families of all the victims killed and injured, civilian and military, as a result of yesterday's events, and with the family of the soldier who died yesterday as a result of earlier events.
We welcome the inquiry, but it must be impartial, and it must be entirely judicial, to investigate what happened. Where did the fire come from? At the bar of world opinion it is important to know the facts. Without them there will be no progress in the talks. And, unlike with some of the other inquiries, there must be speed.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we need also to know how it happened in the context of Government policy, as opposed to the events of yesterday? Was the decision to go into the Bogside a reaction to events, or was it the planned disposition of security forces? Who decided this? Was it the decision of the Joint Security Council? If so, was it with the full knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government?
34
I am aware that question and answer are not enough for this important topic, and I give notice that, at the proper time, I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 and move a Motion that we should debate the situation in Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
Mr. Maudling: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the inquiry should be impartial, judicial and should proceed with speed. The Army was acting under normal instructions, which is to deal with breaches of the law, to apprehend lawbreakers, and to do both with the minimum necessary force.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend, in the inquiry, go a little further than the mere military incident yesterday? It seems vital that the House and the country should know how the decision was taken and who approved the necessary action, whether it was approved here, or reviewed here, because quite clearly this enormous body of people probably could not be held by the forces available to the commander-in-chief.
Mr. Maudling: Certainly the inquiry will look into the circumstances in which the illegal march took place, and what happened thereafter.
Mr. Delargy: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the war in Ulster has lasted longer than the Black and Tan war, of odious memory, and that the paratroopers will be remembered for just as long now with the same odium?—[Interruption.] What I am stating is a fact. They will be so remembered.
It was reported in the Press here last week that other military commanders, other British officers, including brigadiers, had said that the paratroopers should be removed from Ulster. What notice was paid by the Government to the advice of those British military commanders?
Mr. Maudling: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the paratroops, and the reports in the newspapers were denied.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: While sharing the anguish which the whole House feels about the events of yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend to be cautious in accepting the numbers of those taking part in the march which have been put

35
forward by newspapers, and elsewhere? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the inquiry he proposes will have powers which are wide enough to enable it to look into the reason why the ban on marches was defied, and who the organisers were? Will my right hon. Friend also make sure that the inquiry is conducted with speed, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked, and that every facility is provided for those Scottish policemen who were witnesses to the incidents of yesterday, and in a position to see what happened, to give evidence at such an inquiry?
Mr. Maudling: The inquiry will be as thorough and as speedy as possible, and should cover all the circumstances in which the march took place and what happened as a result thereafter.
Mr. Fitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that people in Northern Ireland will not accept the findings of any inquiry which is set up under the auspices of a Tory Government? The only inquiry they will accept is one set up under international auspices such as the United Nations. If the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister are so confident of the rectitude of the operations of British troops yesterday, why should they take steps to forestall such an impartial inquiry?
Will the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary also take it from me that the sooner the paratroops are withdrawn from Northern Ireland the better? No one wants to see any more fatalities, but if the regiment continues to remain in Northern Ireland there will be fatalities.
The sooner steps are taken to suspend the Stormont Government and to withdraw all British troops from Northern Ireland the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Maudling: The Government intend this inquiry to be impartial. We do not intend to hand over our responsibility for any part of the United Kingdom to an international body.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst I fully understand the reasons why the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to set up
36
this inquiry, and whilst I hope that the inquiry will take place as soon as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that there are some of us who, bearing in mind the record of the Parachute Regiment, or that of any other British regiment, have every faith in Her Majesty's troops?
Mr. Maudling: I share my hon. Friend's respect for the British Army, the Army of the United Kingdom, which is doing a job which it did not seek but which was imposed upon it in the interests of law and order in the most intolerable circumstances.
Mr. Stallard: I should like to add my sympathies to those which have been offered to the relatives of the 15 people of Derry, including an 8 year-old child and a teenage girl, who were killed yesterday in the incidents in the city.
Would the right hon. Gentleman now accept that the British Army is being used to implement the repressive measures of Stormont against the minority population, and that this has resulted in the alienation of thousands of Catholics, both in the Six Counties and further afield? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that minority will never ever be defeated by this kind of repression? How many more times have we to say that? How many more times have we to say, "We told you so"? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the withdrawal of British troops from these Catholic areas into some kind of neutral zone?
Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider the ending of internment, the suspension of Stormont, the bringing back here of all security forces and the setting up of a commission immediately in the Six Counties to rule that province pending a permanent political solution?
Mr. Maudling: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the rôle of the Army. The Army was there yesterday to assist the civil power in enforcing the law against a deliberate attempt to break the law. That is our duty, and when people fire on troops, when people attack soldiers with bullets and bombs, they must expect retaliation.
Miss Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is the second time the

37
Minister has stood up and lied to the House. Nobody shot at the paratroops, but somebody will shortly
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Biffen: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the statement by Mr. Lynch that the behaviour of British troops was savagely inhuman? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a deplorable remark, most of all as it comes from the Prime Minister of a State which purports to be friendly and to which we extend unique privileges in respect of nationality and trade?
Mr. Maudling: I think that that statement was both inaccurate and unfortunate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We appear to be getting—[Interruption.]—I was about to remind the House that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) had given me notice of his intention to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 9
Mr. Harold Wilson: Even on the assumption, Mr. Speaker, that you may grant an application under Standing Order No. 9—we do not yet know—this House is far from satisfied on this matter. It is important that, in a debate on Standing Order No. 9, we get a rather deeper analysis of the problems than has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. May I put one or two questions, and could not the same apply to any other hon. Member whom you want to call? First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his announcement of an inquiry on the grounds that serious allegations have been made—including a number by impartial, or, so far as we can tell, impartial, observers—and in view of the fact that the inquiry has been demanded by Cardinal Conway, whose record in condemning violence is known to all hon. Members?
On the other hand, we have had the categorical statements of the Commander, Land Forces, to the effect that no shots were fired until sniping began, and that shots were fired only at snipers. In view of all this, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will support the announcement of an inquiry, and that, as he has
38
now agreed, it should be speedy, independent and judicial? Could I therefore press upon the right hon. Gentleman that it must be held in public?
Second, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even so, however speedy, consistent with a fair report, it may be, the Northern Irish situation will not wait for an inquiry? We have not had the Scar-man Report yet to deal with events from 1969. Will the right hon. Gentleman, between now and tomorrow, address himself to proposals put from this Box nine-and-a-half weeks about the transfer of the responsibility for security from the Northern Ireland Government to Her Majesty's Government—from the Stormont Parliament to this House?
Third, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, while the House is deeply preoccupied today, as it must be, with the tragedy and with the loss of life and the feelings of the relatives of those who were wounded—including the soldiers who have been wounded in this incident and in others—there will be no answer to this on a basis purely of a military answer; that there has to be a political solution? While I will stand in my corner with the Prime Minister on the fact that it is now nine weeks since the Government accepted my proposal for all-party talks—I accept my responsibility for the delays together with the right hon. Gentleman—will he recognise that we can now wait no longer, that there must be all-party talks in this House leading to talks with the Stormont Parliament and then with the Parliament in Dublin?
Mr. Maudling: On the first point, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the inquiry, and agrees that it should be independent, judicial and speedy. I see his point about the delays which have taken place on previous occasions—the Scarman inquiry, for example, has taken a very long time. So we must get the form right. I will tell the House what we have decided on—[HON. MEMBERS: "In public."] There are difficulties with all these inquiries—for example, the security of individual witnesses. Even under the 1921 Act, there is provision for certain parts of the inquiry to be held in camera. These are important matters to consider.
On the second point, that of transferring security, I do not think that this is

39
relevant. What is in question here are the actions of the British Army, for which this Government accept full responsibility—
Mr. Harold Wilson: No.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman says, "No"; I say, "Yes".
On the third point, the political solution, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we entirely agree with him on the importance of finding a political solution. Heaven alone knows, yesterday's events should add weight to the importance of finding a political solution.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government and this House accept responsibility for the Army. That is true, but the Army was put in, by a decision, I agree, of the previous Government, in a security rôle in Northern Ireland. We have now reached the point where this House can no longer carry the can for that security rôle unless we take the political decisions on security. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am opposed to those who want to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why we should carry responsibility here unless we carry responsibility and control of the political decision under which they operate.
Mr. Maudling: I still think that I was right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in regarding that as relevant to yesterday's occurrencies. What happened yesterday was that the Army was supporting the civil power in maintaining the ban on political processions from any quarter and of any kind in Northern Ireland, which both sides of the House thoroughly support.
Mr. Goodhart: As one who is proud to have served in the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remind the House that one member of this much-maligned regiment was recently awarded the George Cross posthumously for protecting the lives of Irish children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Is it not a fact that the Parachute Regiment has been commended publicly for the restraint that it has shown in the past in dealing with difficult crowd situations in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Maudling: I think that the services rendered by this unit, as by other units of the Briitsh Army, are very great indeed.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is an appalling thought that a pitched battle reminiscent of wartime conditions took place in the United Kingdom yesterday? We therefore welcome this inquiry. But would he not agree that, if it is to be thorough, it is equally important that its findings should be generally accepted? Will he therefore not turn his mind, as I think he did earlier, from the possibility of a very distinguished international statesman, of the calibre, say, of Mr. Lester Pearson, which would in no way—[Interruption.] I believe that is the sort of name which commends itself to those members of the party opposite who have had experience of office.
Second, since the tension in Northern Ireland at the moment is very near a condition of civil war, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the security forces, in carrying out an almost impossible job, have adequate political advice available to them before they take security decisions?
Mr. Maudling: On the first point, while I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, it would be a sad day for this country if we had to admit that we could not find anyone within our own boundaries capable of carrying out this task. On the second point, I am satisfied that the political advice available to the Army in carrying out their duties is entirely adequate.
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made an intimation to the House, which was very nearly a hint, that I was waiting for the application of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. McManus: On a point of order. It is a fact that a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was the subject of a murderous attempt on her life yesterday on a platform at Derry and that she has not been allowed to speak in this short exchange.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised two points of order. I must remain in control of the proceedings.
Miss Devlin: On a point of order. I am the only person in this House who was present yesterday when, whatever the facts of the situation might be said —[Interruption.] Shut up! I have a right, as the only representative in this House who was an eye witness, to ask a question of that murdering hypocrite—
Hon. Members: Order!
Miss Devlin: I will ask him a question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has no such right. She has that right only if she is called on by me.
Miss Devlin rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known to many hon. Members who received direct eye-witness reports from Derry yesterday that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) with my noble Friend and others on that platform were forced to prostrate themselves while a hail of bullets was fired in their direction and that you, Mr. Speaker, refused to call one of those people who were present—
Hon. Members: Shame!
Mr. Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although there can be no excuse for the conduct of the hon. Lady just now, which is most reprehensible, is it not right that that was provoked by a murderous attempt on her and by your attempt to silence her?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has no right to challenge my decision. What I was about to say to the hon. Lady was that the place for her to give her account of what happened is the inquiry. That is where she should rightly make her statement.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the situation this afternoon has been heightened by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) not being allowed to put her point of view whether the House agrees with it or not. She is the elected Member for Mid-Ulster. She was present at the demonstration. Surely it would have been in the interests of
42
democracy for the hon. Lady to have been heard.
Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Lady twice to points of order. I was about to point out to her that the proper place for her to give her evidence was not to the House but to the committee of inquiry.
Mr. Tom Boardman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. What is the position of an hon. Member who, having taken the oath, incites others to break the law?
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Tom Boardman: I refer in particular to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who must bear a very heavy responsibility for yesterday's tragic events.
Mr. Speaker: Any such matters must be raised on a substantive Motion.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the remark made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) was thoroughly out of order. Surely it is entirely out of order to make such an accusation against an hon. Member?
Mr. Speaker: Such an accusation must be made on a substantive Motion.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you give an assurance to the House that the normal three-hour debate tomorrow will be extended—when it is accepted—because there are many of us here, both Englishmen and Protestants—I am one of them—who feel a great sense of shame at what happened yesterday in Northern Ireland. I am not speaking as a Catholic—
Mr. Speaker: Order
Mr. Heffer: Mr. Speaker—
Hon. Members: Sit down!
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is on a hypothetical point. It is not yet known whether there will be such a debate tomorrow.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it really in keeping with the practices of the House that an hon. Member who has made a violent attack upon other Members of the House

43
Should remain seated within the Chamber?
Miss Devlin: I did not shoot him in the back, which is what they did to our people.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that hon. Members would leave matters of order to me.
Mr. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question I asked a few moments ago, the Home Secretary said that the troops replied with bullets to demonstrators who had fired on the troops. We are entitled to evidence of that reply. The only Member who was present could have given us that evidence if she had been called. I submit that the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) should have been called.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of a Minister's answer is not a matter for the Chair.

RHODESIA
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, I have been in touch with Mr. Smith about arrangements for Members of Parliament to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission. [Interruption.] I have made clear in this House my view that it is wrong for us to transfer our political differences to Rhodesia or for British political parties to propagate their views on the proposals for a settlement in that country while the Test of Acceptability is being conducted. [Interruption.] Nevertheless, the Government accept that this House might wish to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission—
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members on this side are very anxious to listen to what the Foreign Secretary has to say, but we cannot do so because of the noise coming from below the Gangway on the Government benches.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: We on this side have not heard a word. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to be so good as to start again?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With permission, Mr. Speaker, if no one has heard I will start again.
As the House will be aware, I have been in touch with Mr. Smith about arrangements for Members of Parliament to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission. I have made clear in this House my view that it is wrong for us to transfer our political differences to Rhodesia or for British political parties to propagate their views on the proposals for a settlement in that country while the Test of Acceptability is being conducted. Nevertheless, the Government accept that this House might wish to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission, and I have expressed my view that an all-party delegation would be the most appropriate arrangement.
The Labour Party, for its part, has preferred to propose a single-party delegation, representing the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If this could be arranged, it was also prepared to take part in the all-party delegation. At its request, therefore, I forwarded a proposal on its behalf to Mr. Smith. The Liberal Party made a similar request, and I took similar action.
In his reply Mr. Smith has said that he is prepared to receive a limited number of individual M.P.s or groups of M.P.s, provided they go in the capacity of observers of the Pearce Commission's work and not to propagate support for or objection to the terms of the settlement. He has added that he would not be prepared to admit persons who were on record as having aided or encouraged terrorist activities there.
After consulting the right honourable Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and the honourable Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I was able to assure Mr. Smith that both the Labour and Liberal Party delegations were ready to undertake that they would not engage in any propaganda while in Rhodesia. I have now received a message from Mr. Smith, and he has made the substance of it

45
public, declining to admit the Labour and Liberal Party delegations as constituted, on the grounds that some of the proposed Members have encouraged or actively supported terrorist movements in Africa.
I am satisfied that the legitimate purpose of observing on behalf of this House the operation of the Pearce Commission can be satisfactorily fulfilled by an all-party delegation. Indeed a privately-organised bi-party delegation has just been in Rhodesia for this purpose. The all-party delegation can be pursued through the usual channels.
Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this side of the House regards it as intolerable that the leader of a rebellion against the Crown who is seeking recognition by the United Kingdom should ban visits to British territory by public figures and Members of this House to observe the way in which one of the conditions for recognition is being fulfilled?
Second, did not Mr. Smith a few days ago agree to accept party delegations provided that they were not proposing to indulge in propaganda—an assurance which had been given some time ago—and did not his public statement in Salisbury, according to the newspapers, cite Labour Party conference resolutions in 1970 and 1971 as a reason for refusing the whole of the Labour Party delegation?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no party conference resolution on Rhodesia in 1970 and that the resolution in 1971 said nothing about terrorism but expressed sentiments which I hope the right hon. Gentleman would share; namely, that
"the Parliamentary Labour Party should do all in its power to ensure that sanctions are being vigorously enforced and that no deals which do not recognise the six principles are made with the rebel régime."
In the light of Mr. Smith's statement in Salisbury, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is Mr. Smith's intention to refuse all Labour Members of Parliament, and, indeed, all members of the Labour Party, entry to Rhodesia at this time? Further, does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Smith's behaviour on his undertaking to him last Thursday throws an interesting light on other undertakings he is giving in the context of the proposals for a settlement?
46
What does the Foreign Secretary propose to do about it? Will he let Mr. Smith wipe his feet on him again? Will he recognise that no self-respecting political organisation in the United Kingdom could allow a rebel to dictate the composition and procedure of a body whose purpose was to ensure that British obligations were observed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Smith's decision regarding the Liberal and Labour Party delegations will make it very difficult, if not impossible—certainly for the Labour Party—to participate in an all-party delegation?
To enable the Labour Party in Parliament to make up its mind on an all-party delegation, will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, has he a firm assurance from Mr. Smith that the Parliamentary Labour Party will be free, through the usual channels, to choose whomsoever it likes as the members of such a delegation, if it decides to participate? Second, will the delegation be free to decide its procedure, its programme and its itinerary in Rhodesia as it wishes, without vetoes and interdictions by the Smith régime?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My desire, obviously, is to try to serve the House in this matter if the House wishes to observe the Pearce Commission in action. My position—I have made no doubt about it—is that I think this ought to be done, if at all, by an all-party delegation. I have no doubt that this could be arranged.
I come now to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asks whether there is a ban on all Labour politicians. The obvious answer is, "No". The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) has been there, and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who is an opponent of the Smith régime, is there at this moment. So the answer is, "No". But what Mr. Smith has told me is that he is not prepared to have as part of an all-party delegation or as part of a party delegation people who have advocated violence in Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who."] It is not for me to interpret statements made by hon. Members in the past or to interpret resolutions passed by the National Executive of the Labour Party, when, for example, it approved the distribution of moneys in Africa for guerrilla purposes.

47
It is not for me to judge that. They have done it. Mr. Smith objects to that, and he will not, so I understand, have members of the National Executive who have voted for such a resolution.
Mr. Hastings: Are we not supposed to be concerned with the views on the proposed agreement of the Rhodesian people of all races rather than with the extension of our controversies in this House into Rhodesia? If that be so, would it not be a good deal better if all right hon. and hon. Members stayed here and let the Pearce Commission get on with its work?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Pearce Commission is to interpret opinion of all Rhodesians on the proposed settlement, not to interpret our opinions. But if the House wishes to send a delegation to observe the Pearce Commission I think it reasonable that it should be able to do so; and the obvious way to do this, the way we should have done it in any other case, is by an all-party delegation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) to ask a question at this point?
Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify one or two points on the messages from Mr. Smith? Is it a fact that after he had first given the names of the two delegations Mr. Smith appeared to accept the delegations and then later changed his mind? Second, did the right hon. Gentleman pass on the assurance which I gave on behalf of the Liberal delegation that we would not make propaganda against the settlement while we were in Rhodesia? Third could the Foreign Secretary answer the question already asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about whether the parties are free to choose their representatives, and whether they are free to choose their own representatives on his proposed all-party delegation, without veto by Mr. Smith? Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, with his own particular authority, that terrorist raids across the Border ceased over 200 years ago and there is no intention to start again?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I passed on the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he would not indulge in any propaganda and neither would those he took with him. I cannot, as I say, be responsible for putting any interpretation whatever upon what the hon. Gentleman may have said in the past about Rhodesia, but I did hand on faithfully to Mr. Smith what he said. I repeat that the way to organise this is through an all-party delegation. Of course, if they wish to go separately, the parties can choose their own representatives. I cannot guarantee that all those named would necessarily be accepted in Rhodesia.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with his obsequious attitude to Mr. Smith, will he say, in view of the words he has just used about right hon. and hon. Members making statements which he will not interpret, whether he agrees with Mr. Smith that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) have, in fact, made statements in relation to Mr. Smith which he is not prepared to defend? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about his proposals for a parliamentary delegation? Will he agree that if there is to be a parliamentary delegation he must be responsible for it, the names from the Conservative side will be nominated by the Prime Minister and from this side by this Front Bench, and that he will allow no censorship by Mr. Smith as to who goes?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, although he says that he has no responsibility in this matter, he has signed an agreement with Mr. Smith which he is going to excessive lengths to try to promote in this House and in Rhodesia, and will he now tell Mr. Smith that if we cannot decide from this House who visits a country administered by an illegal régime he will tear up the agreement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not for a moment defend Mr. Smith's decision. I think it is better that Members of Parliament should be able to go to Rhodesia to observe, though I am bound to say that it was the right hon. Gentleman's party which made the complication. I

49
proposed an all-party delegation, and the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will just keep quiet for a moment, I shall tell him. I proposed an all-party delegation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his right hon. Friends wished to pursue their party delegation as well as the all-party delegation.
Mr. Mellish: Why not?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not believe that it was ever contemplated by a single Member of the House when the right hon. Gentleman or I were talking about the fifth principle that we should fight out our party-political battles on Rhodesian soil. I repeat that I am at the service of the House in this matter, and I want to help if I possibly can. So I shall certainly see whether we can arrange an all-party delegation, though I cannot make myself responsible for interpreting statements made or resolutions passed by the National Executive of the Labour Party.
Sir B. Braine: There is one thing upon which we can all agree on both sides of the House—namely, the desire to achieve a just and fair settlement in Rhodesia—and in order to ascertain whether this is possible, the Pearce Commission must be allowed to carry out its job without fear or favour. That being said, is it not reasonable, traditional and customary for Members of the House, who will have to take the ultimate decision, to wish to support the idea of a parliamentary delegation? Will my right hon. Friend take it that many of us feel that an all-party delegation, selected in the customary manner, may well be the answer, and one which would satisfy both sides of the House?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have complete trust in the Pearce Commission, and I do not know why we should want to observe it at work. But a number of hon. Members have gone, and I have no doubt that a great number more can go if they wish. If the House desires to send an all-party delegation, I shall try to organise it, but certain people have in the past made very violent statements about Rhodesia and Africa, and I cannot guarantee any Member getting in.
Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman does not see any need for
50
anyone to observe the Pearce Commission, does he see any need for hon. Members to have the same rights as he had when he was on this Front Bench to go and observe other activities and the arrest of leading statesmen in Rhodesia? Is it wrong that hon. Members can go and see that? If the right hon. Gentleman is trying still to advocate an all-party delegation, though he may not have had the last word from Mr. Smith on that, has not he just used words to make it clear that no member of the Labour Party National Executive will be allowed to enter Rhodesia in view of its collective responsibility for statements that the right hon. Gentleman seems unable to construe? In those circumstances, if we are to consider the possibility of an all-party delegation, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that anyone nominated through the usual channels from this side of the House will get into Rhodesia?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is not wrong for Members of Parliament to go to Rhodesia. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich has been there—
Mrs. Renée Short: Answer the question.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman asked his question in his own way, and I shall answer it in mine. He asked me whether it was wrong for Members of Parliament to go to Rhodesia. I have said "No", because patently it is not wrong.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Any Member?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Members for West Bromwich and York are there, and there has been no trouble.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Any Member?
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Shut up.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the right hon. Gentleman says, sitting down shouting questions at me, as he usually does, "Any Member?", the answer is that neither he nor I in these circumstances can guarantee that any Member can go if that Member has advocated violence, but that is not for me to interpret.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison—
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any of the questions. Will he now answer the following question? If he is sponsoring an all-party delegation, will he undertake that anyone nominated through the usual channels will be backed by Her Majesty's Government as a representative of this House? If not, will he make it clear to Mr. Smith that this destroys the agreement, because if Mr. Smith behaves like this now how would he behave if he got a settlement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the proper way to deal with an all-party delegation would be through the usual channels—
Mr. Harold Wilson: That is what I said.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: —and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not sponsor those who have advocated violence. As to destroying the agreement, I do not believe that on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would repeat what he said about that, because he told me the other day that he wished the Commission to stay in Rhodesia.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Biggs-Davison rose
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman, recalling perhaps that it was Mr. Smith, not my hon. Friends, who shot 15 Rhodesian citizens, has now challenged me as to the names. Since Mr. Smith has rejected my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that if their names were part of a parliamentary delegation he would support and insist on their admission?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, as I understand it. I do not think that Mr. Smith has rejected his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. I have said that my desire is to serve the reasonable requirements of the House. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has the worst manners I have ever seen of anyone in Parliament. I would certainly say—[Interruption.]—if the right hon. Gentleman will control himself—but, of course,
52
knowing the right hon. Member for Leeds, East as I do, I accept his assurance, and I told Mr. Smith that he had given me the most absolute assurance that he would do nothing but observe the Commission. Therefore, when he asks whether I will support the names of any Members he gives me, my reply is that I will certainly, of course, represent to Mr. Smith—[An HON. MEMBER: "Stop wriggling."] The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible to insist, but I will do everything I can, as the House would wish.
Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman does not know whether he is on his belly or his knees. No guts.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: While the Labour Party is financing terrorist movements operating in Southern Africa, would it not be more tactful for its National Executive, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the whole shooting match to stay at home?
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary putting the same misplaced confidence in Mr. Smith in Rhodesia as he did some years ago in Herr Hitler at Munich? Is it not a fact that what Mr. Smith is saying is, "Those people I favour I shall have over, but those I do not favour are taboo"? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Sir Dingle Foot advocated violence in Rhodesia?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman says about Mr. Smith can be true, because the hon. Member for York is in Rhodesia now.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: What about Dingle Foot?
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In the present very difficult situation in Rhodesia, would it not be helpful if both sides of the House used temperate language and avoided, for instance, calling the man de facto responsible for security in Rhodesia a rebel against the Crown?
Mr. Raphael Tuck: What else is he?
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: While the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) uses language like that, is it surprising that he finds difficulty in obtaining access to Rhodesia from the man who would be responsible for his safety while he was out there?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There seem to me to be two ways of dealing with the matter; either we can set up an all-party delegation or the different parties can go ahead with their own arrangements. If they want to do that, there is no objection from me. All I have to say is that it may be that some indivividuals will not be accepted.
Mr Thorpe: May I on behalf of the Liberal Party—
Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. Gentleman cannot go.
Mr. Thorpe: —remind the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that he accepted the good faith of both the Labour and the Liberal proposed delegations in saying that they would go merely as observers and would not indulge in any political activity? Since I have no possible cause to accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has been actively encouraging or supporting terrorism, which I understand is the unsupported allegation, may I as a matter of good manners give advance notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he would not allow any censorship to be placed upon us from Salisbury in the selection of the all-party delegation, and that our nomination would be my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As long as the right hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot insist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not want to go on insisting on what I said before, but it is true. [Interruption.] In a matter of life or death the right hon. Gentleman had no chance whatever of saving those about to be hanged in Rhodesia.
Mr. Tapsell: While recognising that the complexity of the Rhodesian situation is plain to all and that the statesmanship and restraint with which it has been handled by my right hon. Friend has been generally admired, may I ask whether we must not also in this House have some regard to its dignity? Would it not be wrong to establish the principle that if an all-party delegation were to be chosen in our traditional fashion anyone outside this country should have any control over its membership?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. If there was censorship of an all-party delegation, the all-party delegation obviously could not go.
Mr. Bottomley: Is it not a fact that Rhodesia is in a state of rebellion and that any right hon. or hon. Member of this House has the right to visit that territory if he or she so wishes? In these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) decides to go to Rhodesia, what protection will Her Majesty's Government afford him?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Members of this House who have in very recent days been to Rhodesia have received, of course, all the facilities that our very limited representation in that country can give them. Everything has been put at their disposal—arrangements for their programmes, and the rest. I cannot insist, however, much as I should like to, because I know that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) is a most harmless fellow.
Mr. Wall: Is not this another illustration of where power actually lies and that, whether we like it or not, legally or illegally Rhodesia has been independent since 1965?
Mr. Michael Stewart: I am sorry to press still further the same point, but it has been very difficult to get a real answer from the Foreign Secretary about the position of an all-party delegation. He is recommending an all-party delegation of the House. But it must be apparent to him—it seems to be from his last answer—that this House could not accept the insult of having its delegation vetoed by Mr. Smith. Before he recommended to the House an all-party delegation, what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that Mr. Smith would accept such Members as the House thought fit to choose?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was complicated by the fact that a right hon. Gentleman opposite had to tell me that the Opposition could not be members of an all-party delegation unless a Labour Party delegation went as well. That is where the complication began. Mr. Smith has always said that he could

55
not accept into Rhodesia people who had publicly advocated violence.
Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman has repeated that phrase, would he indicate which Members of this House have publicly advocated violence—have not merely sympathised with the African cause in Rhodesia, but publicly advocated violence and have definitely said it again and again—and will he give the date on which the National Executive of the Labour Party ever passed any such resolution?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir; I cannot. That would be putting me in the position of recalling hon. Members' speeches or interpreting them, and it would be quite improper that I should try to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland as evidenced in the tragic events in Londonderry on 30th January, 1972, and the danger that it will lead to further civilian and military deaths, and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement."
The situation speaks for itself. The events occur in the United Kingdom. No words of mine are needed to embellish what television shows in our homes and what we see when we visit Northern Ireland. I simply beg to move.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has asked leave—he gave me notice some time ago of his intention—to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland as evidenced in the tragic events in Londonderry on 30th January, 1972, with the danger that it will lead to further civilian and military deaths, and the need for urgency in Government policy on security decisions and talks leading to a political settlement."
56
These are difficult matters to decide. The decision is for me. I am not allowed to give reasons. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Has the hon. Gentleman leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: If there is no shout of "No", there is no need for anybody to stand up.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have raised this point before. I realise that the Standing Order allows only for three hours. In view of the importance of this debate and the fact that there are many hon. Members who are not from Northern Ireland but who feel very strongly about this situation, is it not possible to extend the period of debate? Can this be done through the usual channels, or is there no way in which it could be achieved?
Mr. Speaker: I must rule at once that there is no way in which it could be done. The Standing Order only allows a debate for three hours. The matter is completely out of my hands.
Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since, when you asked just now whether the Motion had leave of the House, most right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House stood up but very few, if arty, right hon. and hon. Members opposite stood up—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I pointed out at once that it was quite unnecessary for anyone to stand up. Unless there is a disputing of the permission, it is quite unnecessary for anyone to stand up.
Mr. Driberg: Perhaps I can finish my question for the benefit of HANSARD, Mr. Speaker. Would you therefore refrain from calling in the debate tomorrow those who are not interested?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of of order and I will certainly pay no attention to it.

57
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Peter Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise as a matter of breach of privilege the conduct of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) in assaulting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to be firm on these matters. I have already called on the Clerk to read the Orders of the day. I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) permission to go on with his submission at this stage.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
Mr. Page: —unemployment that they should try to get rid of, are encouraging members of trade unions to act, as they are in the coal mining industry, in such a way that they are likely to jeopardise their jobs. The number of men engaged as coal miners is bound to be less six months after the dispute ends than it was before. The speeches of Labour Members merely fan the flames of industrial disputes. That is a disservice to the industrial life of this country and to their constituents.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: Without being too personal to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), I must say that his speech was so pathetic that I should not be expected to make an apology for not following what he said. When an hon. Member on the Government side charges
188
the Opposition with the task of solving the problem of the million unemployed that the Government have produced, the situation is very grim.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we were gloating over the public's being inconvenienced by the miners having to go on strike. Those are not his exact words, but that is what he meant. The hon. Gentleman should not direct those remarks to us, because the Government could end the strike simply by forgoing their wages policy, related solely to the public sector, and telling the National Coal Board, "We shall not interfere should you desire to increase the offer to the National Union of Mineworkers." If they did, the Board would immediately settle with the mineworkers. The only reason why there is no settlement is not that we are gloating but that the Government have given clear and specific instructions to the Board that under no circumstances can it go over and above the wages offer it has made in accordance with the Government's wages policy—a policy which they say they do not have.
Mr. John Page: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be in the interests of the miners for their wages to be increased to such an extent that coal, as a source of power, became priced out of the market?
Mr. Loughlin: Some 70,000 mineworkers receive gross wages, before deductions are made, of less than £19 a week; half of the 280,000 mineworkers receive less than £24 a week.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What has this to do with the order?
Mr. Loughlin: It has a lot to do with the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, West. I am not interested in whether the issue at the moment is whether the miners will price themselves out of the market, because I know that the Government have refused to allow the Coal Board to increase the price of coal to keep the miners in the market.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Passing references to such matters are permitted, but the hon. Gentleman is going on with the matter a little too long. Will he return to the order?
Mr. Loughlin: One of my faults is that I usually go on a little long. What I want to say about the order is this. I think that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House for the Government to seek to bring in a single order of this kind to deal so comprehensively with the Act. It deals with 59 Sections of the Act; it deals virtually with every issue which concretely can arise—and I use the word "concretely" deliberately—from the Act. The negative procedure is here being used so that the Government may push through powers granted to the Minister at the time the House passed the Industrial Relations Bill. I have been trying to think of an occasion on which such a procedure has been used in this way before. I charge the Government with deliberately steamrolling matters through the House in this way. Instead of doing this by one order, they should have done it by 20 to 25 Statutory Instruments.
This order came into operation on 1st December, 1971, and I was somewhat amused in this connection by the remarks of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). He referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my hon. Friend's reference to 13 million lost days as though this were all in the distant past. He suggested that if we had had this legislation, we should not have lost 13 million working days.
I remind the House that the Act came into operation on 1st December, 1971, and that we have since had a miners' strike. About 280,000 miners have been on strike for 16 working days and so, although the Act has been in operation only about one month, about three million working days have been lost.
We are asked as our last chance to approve provisions purporting to enable the country to get away from industrial disputes, from the "enormous number" of strikes which occurred before 1st January. What is the point of the legislation when on the first major test the Secretary of State does not use any of the powers available to him although there is a major strike? He has not used his power to ask the industrial court to order an end to the dispute; nor has he taken any other action, for he knows that to do so would be a sheer waste of time.
190
He should accept the Motion. Not to do so is not only to waste our time, which is valuable, but to waste his.
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member referred to the miners' strike. The Act bolsters the free collective bargaining system. It is an essential part of that free collective bargaining system that from time to time there will be disputes about what the bargain is to be. What the Act will help to ensure is that once the bargain is made, it is kept, and kept on both sides. That will be a major step forward.
Mr. Loughlin: The Act says that the Secretary of State shall have power to intervene in any dispute from which there is an economic danger to the country. The Secretary of State has not sought to invoke that power. This is a sheer waste of time.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us something about the industrial relations courts which I understand have been working for some time. During the passage of the Bill it was said that they would be less formal, judicially, than, say, the Queen's Bench Division or the criminal courts. How have they been working? How are the trade union members who appear before them finding that they are being treated? I should have liked to make a longer speech but in view of the time I will confine my remarks to these matters.
11.17 p.m.
Mr. Alex Eadie: As the miners' strike has entered into the debate it is appropriate that a miner should make some comments. We have shown that the Act is already in disrepute. I asked the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) whether he would invoke the Act in the miners' dispute but he either did not hear me or did not want to commit himself.
We have had this talk about arbitration, but the miners have had their arbitration. To apply the arbitration procedures of the Act would only aggravate the dispute. The miners had their arbitration 11 years ago. Last night on the "Frost Programme" I heard a Tory M.P. say, inaccurately, that the miners had gone to arbitration recently. They have not been to arbitration since 1946. In

191
1961 we said that we would not have any more because the last award was 5s. a week. The Government cannot say that arbitration would be fair and neutral because the miners know that it would not be. The last time they were deceived over surface workers' hours. The surface man works an eight-hour day and the arbitration gave him 12 minutes. The Government cannot point an accusing finger at the miners about democratic procedure. The miners' strike has shown how ineffective the Act is.
11.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): While I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) I am grateful to him for keeping his remarks reasonably brief. We have all spent many hours discussing this Act. The fundamental question we have to ask in considering the various commencement orders of the Act which are to come before us—and there are 59 Sections tonight—is whether they will help to improve industrial relations The Opposition have consistently maintained that they will not, but it has always been the Government's case that the Act in the long term will alter the climate effectively and be of real benefit to both sides of industry if they approach the problems ahead of them and use the provisions of the Act in a realistic and sensible way.
There has been a good deal of noise and much comment about the way in which the Act is allegedly undermining the voluntary system. But people on both sides of industry have agreed that that system was not above inspection and improvement. The Government's position is that there are a number of important defects in the industrial relations system and though, admittedly, they affect a minority of those engaged in industry, the public interest decrees that something should be done about it, and something has been done about it.
The Act provides a range of devices when intractable problems arise so that they can be dealt with by identifiable solutions. The part of the Act which we are discussing provides some of these solutions, particularly concerning recognition problems and defective procedures. It is true that the Government expect resort to these procedures to be used
192
fairly sparingly, but the fact that they exist means that those concerned are aware of their availability and that their long-term attitudes can be adjusted accordingly.
It is already being alleged, fairly—because we know the attitude which the Opposition have always adopted—that the Act will not be a success. I reject that view. It is far too early to judge how successful it will be. If the Act were not a fact of life, I am sure that the T.U.C. would not have published what I consider to be, in some respects, the very constructive guidelines and advice to its members contained in its handbook on the Act. It is true that it gives guidance to its members on how to get round the Act and says that the Act is not a good one, but, beneath it all, many of its comments can contribute to helping to create good industrial relations. Would the T.U.C. have done this without the Act? Of course it would not.
I do not want to weary the House with too many quotations from the handbook, but I must make one or two. Paragraph 23 states:
"Trade unions should continue to follow traditional methods of obtaining recognition"—
and so say all of us. Paragraph 24
states:
"The conciliation services of the Department of Employment are available to all unions, whether registered or not, for resolving disputes with employers about recognition"
The facilities of the Department are available for that purpose; the T.U.C. is absolutely right about that. Provision for concilation is built into the Act and it is provided for in many of the provisions of commencement order No. 3. In addition, extra conciliation officers will be appointed as a result of the operation of the Act.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it must be a disgraceful Act if he has to call in aid a document which explains how to get round it?
Mr. Smith: On the contrary. In a non-political sense, I am a very liberal politician. We should examine below the surface what impact legislation has on individuals and groups outside the hothouse of the House of Commons. The T.U.C. is already assisting in underpinning the voluntary system of industrial relations by its comments, and by

193
the publication of this document. Paragraph 26 says:
"Unions involved in difficulties with other unions should continue, therefore, the attempt to resolve their problems through any established bilateral machinery or, failing that, through the T.U.C. disputes machinery, and so obviate the possibility of intervention by the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R."
If that comes about, no one will be more pleased than I that industrial relations should be so reformed that the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R. are not needed. The approach of the T.U.C. is important.
The approach of management is also important. In seminars throughout the country management and those who are concerned with the organisation of personnel functions are making themselves expert in the provisions of the Act by debating them in teach-ins. As time goes on we shall see an increasingly sophisticated approach.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke of the emergency procedures and the miners' strike. While the emergency procedure may not have been used in this dispute, it remains an important part of the Act and it certainly is not totally irrelevant. It is procedure to be used sparingly, in the last resort, and we have repeatedly emphasised that these powers would not be lightly used. In years to come there may be occasions on which the procedure can be used, and used to advantage. The powers do not allow the Government to stop strikes—
Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman describe in which circumstances those provisions would be used? Would they be used only when there are unofficial strikes involving unofficial strike leaders?
Mr. Dudley Smith: No. The procedure imposes a period of deferment on the organisation of industrial action. For the procedure to be useful the time has
to be right to put in an application to the industrial court. The crucial test is, would it be conducive to a settlement? This is always the test which my right hon. Friend applies and which I am sure successive Secretaries of State will apply. I do not wish to get involved in the rights and wrongs of the miners' strike, but my right hon. Friend has applied that test and in these circumstances, the procedure would not be conducive to a settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) asked whether the industrial relations court had yet had any cases. As time is short, I will write to him giving him the particulars. There have been eight notifications, seven on recognition and one on procedure agreements. The court is getting down to work and has to notify the Secretary of State of conciliation processes.
Other points were raised by hon. Members, but I have little time to deal with them. I was sorry that the hon Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) took the view he expressed after all the efforts we made to meet him on the question of the approved closed shop. He says that Equity is opting out. I believe that Equity is not to be registered and is not even giving it a try. This shows the paucity of the case.
Debating the Industrial Relations Act is rather like watching an old film on television for the third or fourth time. It does nothing whatever to improve the showing that we have seen in the past and nothing to further the reality of industrial relations. We have to realise that the Act is a reality and that it is working.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 291.

Division No. 49.]

AYES

[11.29 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Albu, Austen

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Buchan, Norman

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bidwell, Sydney

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

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Bishop, E. S.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Armstrong, Ernest

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Ashley, Jack

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Cant, R. B.

Ashton, Joe

Booth, Albert

Carmichael, Neil

Atkinson, Norman

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Carter, Ray (Birmingha'm, Northfield)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Barnes, Michael

Bradley, Tom

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

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

Cohen, Stanley

Baxter, William

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

Coleman, Donald

Conlan, Bernard

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

John, Brynmor

Pendry, Tom

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Crawshaw, Richard

Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Cronin, John

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Prescott, John

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Probert, Arthur

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Judd, Frank

Richard, Ivor

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Kinnock, Neil

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Deakins, Eric

Lambie, David

Robertson, John (Paisley)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Latham, Arthur

Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

Delargy, H. J.

Lawson, George

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Leadbitter, Ted

Roper, John

Dempsey, James

Leonard, Dick

Rose, Paul B.

Doig, Peter

Lestor, Miss Joan

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dormand, J. D.

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Sandelson, Neville

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Driberg, Tom

Lipton, Marcus

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lomas, Kenneth

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

Dunn, James A.

Loughlin, Charles

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dunnett, Jack

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Eadie, Alex

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Sillars, James

Edelman, Maurice

McBride, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McCann, John

Skinner, Dennis

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

McCartney, Hugh

Small, William

Ellis, Tom

McElhone, Frank

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

English, Michael

McGuire, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Evans, Fred

Mackenzie, Gregor

Spriggs, Leslie

Ewing, Henry

Mackie, John

Stallard, A. W.

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Steel, David

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

Maclennan, Robert

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

Strang, Gavin

Foot, Michael

Marks, Kenneth

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Ford, Ben

Marquand, David

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Forrester, John

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Swain, Thomas

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Taverne, Dick

Galpern, Sir Myer

Meacher, Michael

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Garrett, W. E.

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mendelson, John

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

Mikardo, Ian

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Golding, John

Millan, Bruce

Tinn, James

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Tomney, Frank

Gourlay, Harry

Milne, Edward

Torney, Tom

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Tuck, Raphael

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Molloy, William

Urwin, T. W.

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Varley, Eric G.

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wainwright, Edwin

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Moyle, Roland

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Wallace, George

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Ronald King

Watkins, David

Harper, Joseph

Oakes, Gordon

Weitzman, David

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Ogden, Eric

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

O'Halloran, Michael

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Heffer, Eric S.

Oram, Bert

Whitehead, Phillip

Horam, John

Orbach, Maurice

Whitlock, William

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Orme, Stanley

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Oswald, Thomas

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Huckfield, Leslie

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Padley, Walter

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Paget, R. T.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Palmer, Arthur

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hunter, Adam

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Woof, Robert

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)

Pardoe, John

Janner, Greville

Parker, John (Dagenham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Mr. J. D. Concannon and

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. William Hamling.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Astor, John

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Atkins, Humphrey

Batsford, Brian

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Awdry, Daniel

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

196

197

Bell, Ronald

Gray, Hamish

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Green, Alan

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Benyon, W.

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Miscampbell, Norman

Biffen, John

Gryils, Michael

Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

Biggs-Davison, John

Gummer, Selwyn

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Blaker, Peter

Gurden, Harold

Moate, Roger

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Molyneaux, James

Body, Richard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Money, Ernie

Boscawen, Robert

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Monro, Hector

Bowden, Andrew

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Montgomery, Fergus

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

More, Jasper

Braine, Bernard

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Bray, Ronald

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Charles

Brewis, John

Hastings, Stephen

Mudd, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Havers, Michael

Murton, Oscar

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hawkins, Paul

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hay, John

Neave, Airey

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hayhoe, Barney

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Bryan, Paul

Heseltine, Michael

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

Hicks, Robert

Nott, John

Buck, Antony

Higgins Terence L.

Onslow, Cranley

Burden, F. A.

Hiley, Joseph

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Osborn, John

Channon, Paul

Holland, Philip

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Chapman, Sydney

Holt, Miss Mary

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hornby, Richard

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Parkinson, Cecil

Churchill, W. S.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Peel, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Percival, Ian

Clegg, Walter

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Cockeram, Eric

Hunt, John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooke, Robert

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pink, R. Bonner

Coombs, Derek

Iremonger, T. L.

Pounder, Rafton

Cooper, A. E.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cordls, John

James, David

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Cormack, Patrick

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Costain, A. P.

Jessel, Toby

Raison, Timothy

Critchley, Julian

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Crouch, David

Jopling, Michael

Redmond, Robert

Crowder, F. P.

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Curran, Charles

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Rees-Davies, W. R.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James

Kershaw, Anthony

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Dean, Paul

Kilfedder, James

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Digby, Simon Wingfield

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Ridsdale, Julian

Dixon, Piers

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kinsey, J. R.

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Drayson, G. B.

Kirk, Peter

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Dykes, Hugh

Kitson, Timothy

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Eden, Sir John

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rost, Peter

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knox, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lambton, Antony

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Emery, Peter

Lane, David

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Farr, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sharples, Richard

Fell, Anthony

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Le Marchant, Spencer

Simeons, Charles

Fidler, Michael

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Loveridge, John

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Luce, R. N.

Soref, Harold

Fortescue, Tim

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Speed, Keith

Foster, Sir John

MacArthur, Ian

Spence, John

Fowler, Norman

McCrindle, R. A.

Spence, John

Fox, Marcus

McLaren, Martin

Sproat, Iain

Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Stainton, Keith

Fry, Peter

McMaster, Stanley

Stanbrook, Ivor

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Gardner, Edward

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Gibson-Watt, David

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maddan, Martin

Stokes, John

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Madel, David

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Maginnis, John E.

Sutcliffe, John

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Tapsell, Peter

Goodhart, Philip

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Goodhew, Victor

Mather, Carol

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

Gorst, John

Maude, Angus

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Gower, Raymond

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tebbit, Norman

198

199

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Waddington, David

Wilkinson, John

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Woodnutt, Mark

Tilney, John

Wall, Patrick

Worsley, Marcus

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Walters, Dennis

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Trew, Peter

Ward, Dame Irene

Younger, Hn. George

Tugendhat, Christopher

Warren, Kenneth

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Wells, John (Maidstone)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

van Straubenzee, W. R.

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Vickers, Dame Joan

Wiggin, Jerry

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to move the Opposition Motion, I should tell the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other right hon. Members.
  4.40 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the grave damage inflicted on the engineering and shipbuilding industries throughout the United Kingdom by the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have increased unemployment, created uncertainties and held down essential investment.
  This debate is one of a series of debates that the House will be having this winter on the subject of unemployment. It began last Monday with the general debate on unemployment following the publication of the figures indicating that 1 million people were out of work. We shall be coming back to further debates on the crisis in Scotland, Wales and development areas generally and the English regions which have also been very badly hit, especially so since the figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry on Thursday last show that there was a big drop in the number of new jobs which have become available in development areas in every part of the United Kingdom.
  Today we are concentrating on the engineering, metal and shipbuilding industries which are the key sectors of our economy and which are now the most depressed. Without intending any personal discourtesy to the Secretary of State for Scotland, I hope he will understand when I say that neither he nor his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry are really able to answer the charges that we shall make over the whole range of the Motion covering the aircraft industry as well as machine tools, shipbuilding and other industries. I believe that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ought to have been here today to answer

  59
  what is in effect a censure Motion on the policies for which he is the responsible Minister in the Cabinet.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): We understood until this morning that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was to open the debate and that it was to be a specifically Scottish debate as well as dealing with these three industries.
  Mr. Benn: I do not know how the usual channels work in notification of speakers. I mean no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman but the Motion covers the whole of the engineering, shipbuilding and metal industries, and, candidly, neither of the Ministers put up today has responsibilities within Government covering the whole of this area. We shall have a Scottish speaker winding up the debate who has special responsibilities for aerospace, but there is no such Government speaker.
  The unemployment figures were debated last week, but if we break them down to the industries to which they most apply it will be seen that the biggest proportional rises in unemployment in the past year have been in iron and steel, mechanical engineering—particularly metal working and machine tools —and aerospace equipment, manufacturing and repair. The figures show that from the first quarter of 1970 to the third quarter of 1971 there has been a 6 per cent. drop in engineering employment. It is this that in part explains the extension of unemployment to the West Midlands which was previously thought of as a prosperous area but where male unemployment at 6·7 per cent. is now only marginally below that of the North-West at 6·9 per cent. and nearly twice the South-East figure at 3·4 per cent.
  In my own City of Bristol the area manager in publishing the unemployment figures recently had this to say in the accompanying statement:
  "In engineering, one of the worst sectors, unemployment has more than doubled during the year; what is disturbing in this sector is that the high unemployment level has very little seasonal element in it and cannot be expected to respond to the seasonal factors which in the spring normally cut down the numbers unemployed in construction, catering and some of the holiday trades. There
  60
  is no clear sign of improvement in engineering in the sense that any employers are saying, 'We'll soon be wanting more labour from you'.…"
  What the area manager said in Bristol is of general application throughout the country.
  The Sunday Times survey based on a study of forward intentions of a number of major firms came out with the same conclusion about eight days ago when it pointed out that its survey had revealed:
  "The position in commercial vehicles, agricultural machinery and the capital goods sector, with no sign of an improvement in final deliveries of goods, is even worse, and is resulting in a further steady trickle of redundancies."
  We have not had an up-to-the-minute survey of the forecast of future investment during 1972. The last one actually forecast some fall. The only people in this situation still radiating optimism are on the Government Front Bench. The Chancellor in his statement in Leeds last Friday said:
  "We have the springboard for sustained expansion, and that is the only sure way to reduce unemployment."
  Even The Times, not a notorious Labour paper, in its leading article on Saturday queried that statement by the Chancellor when it said:
  "…'business confidence in the sense of new investment and willingness to create new jobs is unusually low at the moment…."
  The grounds for pessimism which we are reflecting in our comments and the reason for this debate are very well rooted in facts. In the machine tool industry, very much the core of the engineering industry and a good indicator of the health of the economy, 1971 was the worst year in living memory. Orders fell 43 per cent. in that industry in 1971 and 6,600 skilled men were sacked during the last year. There are a number of plants, such as the Churchill plant, which are subject to threats of closure. There is trouble at Alfred Herbert's, and Asquiths, and these are the problems of the numerically controlled machine tool industry, which, although it is growing, is now affected by the growth of imports of cheap micro-circuits. There is, too, the closure of Witham which was to have been one of the largest micro-circuit factories in the west of Europe, Glenrothes,

  61
  and the progressive withdrawal of Plesseys and Mullards from micro-circuits which are needed in that particular side of the numerically controlled machine tool industry.
  When along with others I raised this with the Secretary of State, I received from him a reply which is far from reassuring. In his letter to me of 31st December, after I had written to him about my concern for the machine tool industry, he said that he "shares my concern". Then he comes back to the standard Front Bench answer that:
  "There are signs that the economy is already responding to these reflationary measures."
  He adds:
  "I prefer to leave provision of capital to normal finance sources and I am confident the broad measures introduced by the Chancellor will be instrumental in resolving the problems highlighted by Sir Richard Way's report."
  The position is not improving.
  I want now to deal specifically with the figures of unemployment and vacancies in engineering and allied trades—notably with draughtsmen and skilled designers—to underline the gravity of the position. If we take the figures in June, 1970, when the Government came into office, there were 31,500 unemployed with 26,000 vacancies, and, therefore, just over one man was looking for every vacancy. In the period from June, 1970, to September, 1971, the number of unemployed had risen from 31,000 to 58,000—it has risen higher since—while the number of vacancies shrank more than 26,000 to 11,000 and it has fallen since. The number of skilled engineering workers for every vacancy, was just under one for one but now more than five skilled people are in search of every vacancy.
  If we look at the figures for draughtsmen who are the people who actually design advanced equipment in British industry, in June, 1970, there was more than one vacancy for every unemployed draughtsman. Today there are 11·5 skilled unemployed draughtsmen for every vacancy. There could not be a clearer indication of the weaknesses of the engineering industry than those figures.
  Eight weeks ago the "Little Neddy" for the mechanical engineering industry published its report showing no growth
  62
  in 1971, and forecasting that output in 1972 would go up by less than 1 per cent., that investment was stagnant and would remain stagnant until the summer of 1972 and that deliveries in 1972 would be noticeably below those of 1971. The comment of the Sunday Times was that it was
  "A strong warning of continued stagnation in the engineering industry right through to late 1972—in sharp contrast to the optimistic line taken by the Chancellor."
  Wherever we look we find this contrast between the facts and expert non-political comment and the continual optimism, if that is the right word for it, of the Government.
  If one turns to some of the industries concerned, the position can be seen in clearer focus. There are still serious difficulties about the shipbuilding industry. Despite that, at the end of last year the Government decided to persist with their decision to wind up the Shipbuilding Industry Board. It is true that when the board was set up the idea was that it should do a short, sharp job to promote industrial reorganisation and then come to an end.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West): The right hon. Gentleman has just taken the Government to task for winding up the board. Does he remember that in Committee he resisted an Amendment not to bring it to an end compulsorily?
  Mr. Benn: I was reminding the House that the original idea was that the board should be in existence only for a time.
  An Hon. Member: What about the Geddes Committee?
  Mr. Benn: I am prepared to give the hon. Gentleman full credit, but the Geddes Committee recommended that it would be better if the Shipbuilding Industry Board was created for a period and then terminated in order to try to bring forward investment in the shipbuilding industry. Given the problems which remain in the shipbuilding industry, and given the advice of Sir William Swallow, the very distinguished industrialist who was chairman of the board and who regarded it as highly desirable to provide that the work of the board should be carried forward, it is very unfortunate that the board should have been brought to an end in December, 1971.

  63
  Let us consider the Government's handling of particular industries and firms. We have had many opportunities in the last year to debate their handling of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I do not wish to go over the same ground today, although we shall no doubt have the opportunity to debate it when the Government produce their proposals. It is, however, perfectly clear—and I referred to this last week—that promoting Govan Shipbuilders and the way in which the matter has been handled by the Government will cost far more money than would have been the case if U.C.S. had been allowed to complete its reorganisation under Mr. Ken Douglas.
  I was taken to task by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for saying that in the debate last week, but I come today with my evidence. Mr. Douglas, in giving evidence to the S.T.U.C. inquiry, put the cost of starting Govan Shipbuilders at no less than £30 million. Despite the period which has elapsed, the Government have not received the feasibility study giving a clear indication of the future of Scotstoun. I have been in touch with the Minister's office quite regularly on this matter and I have been told that no feasibility study is available.
  The Government know very well that in order to preserve employment on the Clyde, and even to get Govan Shipbuilders set up, Clydebank is the key, and it is absolutely essential that the Government should play a more active part in trying to promote a scheme which will bring about the successful take-up of Clydebank. At a meeting this morning, the U.C.S. workers voted to release a ship for launching tomorrow so as to give the Government more time to find a satisfactory solution. But it is no good the Government expecting us to take seriously their protestations about unemployment while they continue to act with such insensitivity.
  I turn now to the rôle of workers in the engineering industry who have been confronted with a major crisis affecting their firms and many of whom have been declared redundant with very little notice and thrown on the street. Since last summer we have had the case not only of the U.C.S. shop stewards and the workers who have undoubtedly succeeded in per-
  64
  suading the Government to consider the possibility of making Govan Shipbuilders more wide-ranging, but of the workers at Plessey, at Alexandria, who, if Press reports are right, appear to have succeeded in part as a result of their work-in. There are the Fisher-Bendix case in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has played a notable part as the local Member in b ringing the matter to a successful conclusion, the Allis-Chalmers case at Mold, in North Wales, and the pending case of the workers at the Churchill machine tool plant,
  Looking back over the evidence of this new industrial phenomenon, there is no doubt that the men involved have behaved in a highly responsible manner in defending their jobs against Government policy as it has affected them. All the emphasis has perhaps been on those aspects which have been called the "occupation", "the work-in" or "the sit-in". Much too little attention has been given to a parallel phenomenon which has emerged and which can be symbolised by the flight of Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Jack Service to Texas to try to get the Clydebank yard taken over, with a "no strike" pledge in their pockets given to them by the workers involved; the workers at Hawker Siddeley who have been to the House regularly recently to safeguard employment in their company; and the very constructive work done by the workers in B.A.C. and other companies who are making concrete proposals to safeguard their position and, moreover, to promote the interests of their industries.
  My experience of dealing with many of these groups is that increasingly there is to be found a little man at the back with gold-rimmed spectacles who comes from the management and who supports the shop stewards. One of the most important changes which has occurred in recent years is that workers are crossing the old demarcation lines—even the lines between white collar worker and blue collar worker—and are coming together, not only in a necessary defensive action but to consider the future of their industry, bearing in mind the need for them to be successful in the national interest. When we come to consider an alternative to the odious Industrial Relations Bill we shall have learned a great deal from the responsibility exercised by the workers.

  65
  I turn from that general consideration of what has happened in industry to the question of the aircraft industry, where the situation is similar. The Government have made no statement of policy on the aircraft industry since they took office. It is true that, partly no doubt because of the pressure of the Hawker Siddeley workers, the Nimrod order has been announced, but on going into the matter a little more deeply we find that it is an undated contract. There is no provision for the Nimrods to be produced at once. Not only will new employment not be created but not all the Hawker Siddeley jobs involved will be saved.
  The Government have the report of the Society of British Aerospace Constructors which calls for a decision on vertical and short take-off aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has referred to this matter in the House. As with the shipbuilding industry, we are waiting for a clear statement from the Government on this question.
  The answer which the Government always give when they are pressed on these matters is that our entry to the Common Market will provide us with a market which will justify the increased investment. But, without wishing to be negative, I must warn the Government against the creation of a new mythology —that entry into Europe will solve all our industrial and investment problems. It is simply not true to say that British industry, which makes its decisions on the basis of its feel for the situation, does not recognise that the drop in tariffs which divide us from the Six will work the other way and will greatly increase foreign competition. The common agricultural policy will increase living costs and hence prices, and hence may lead to a further round of wage demands, and industry will be operating not under the department which it knows, the Department of Trade and Industry, but under regulations made under a totally different system and tradition of law in the Common Market. It really makes industry anxious rather than immediately automatically self-confident as we approach the European decision. Indeed, in the one industry which has really, in a sense, been Europeanised for some years, the motor industry, where, for example,
  66
  there have been federal companies—Ford of Europe set up in the summer of 1966, General Motors and Chrysler already operating on a European basis—these developments have not necessarily led to increased investment in this country. All the evidence and statistics that we have suggest to us that General Motors has been building more and more on its Opel operations on the Continent. Similarly, Chrysler has been building up in Spain, and Ford has put far more new investment into Cologne than into this country.
  I will go further and say that as we approach Europe we should not adopt an ideology about the relations between Government and industry which is not shared by European Governments already within the Common Market. The German Government have enormously subsidised their own advanced industries. As the House must know, they made their decision about the European airbus without standing on strict criteria—anyway, at the time of the last conference which we attended with them. The French have behaved similarly, and the Italians use public enterprise on a much bigger scale, certainly in development areas, than we have done. For us to approach Europe on the basis that market forces will solve all our problems or create a healthy engineering industry is a very big mistake.
  I turn now to some points which, I believe, the Government must take immediately into consideration.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the aircraft industry, may I impress on him in turn to impress upon the Government the hope that there will be possibilities of the Government's proceeding with the mark II of the RB211?
  Mr. Benn: Well, my hon. Friend may be fortunate and catch the eye of the Chair. The argument about a further mark of RB211 has to be seen in the context of the market available for it. When we do have that debate, as surely we must, on Rolls-Royce, we shall have opportunity to pursue this, but I hope that my hon. Friend may wish to raise it in the context of this debate, too.
  What I am arguing today is that the Government should look again at the need for direct intervention to promote employment, and there are five areas I

  67
  have identified which require serious consideration. The first is the area which one can perhaps properly call that of the advanced industries. We want decisions on aircraft; we want decisions on further expansion of the machine tool industry, given the Government claim that within a year there will be a demand for more machine tools; and on electronics, where there is a serious danger that with the importation of cheap micro-circuits from abroad this country will be left in effect without a micro-circuits industry at all.
  The second area is in those industries which have special difficulties, and there is no doubt at all that shipbuilding is still an example of such. It would be very wrong at this moment for the Government to leave the work of dealing with the shipbuilding industry solely to a small group of civil servants within the Department of Trade and Industry. Thirdly, there is regional development. I cited at the beginning the figures published by the Government last week, and they appeared in the newspapers on 29th January, and they make it clear that in 1971, following the change in the Government's regional policy, the number of new jobs being created in the regions is everywhere diminishing except for, I think, 40 more in East Anglia, against a drop of 43,000 or more nation-wide. Here is an area where it is immensely difficult to get industry to go simply on the basis of trying to build confidence indirectly. I have no doubt at all that the rôle of public enterprise in regional development will have to be looked at more seriously, as it has been in other countries.
  Next is the area of advancing industrial investment where there is an obvious time lag. I am really astonished that the Government on one hand should be urging the nationalised industries to advance their own investment—here is an area where the Government have rather more scope because they are nationalised industries—and, should be prepared on the other hand, to sit back and accept that the engineering industry should mark time for a year, when they tell us that within that year the engineering industry will be so heavily stretched that even Ministers are anxious that this may lead to the sucking in of imports, with adverse effects on the balance of payments.
  68
  Fifth, there is the area of the broad range of what one may call environmental expenditure. I hope I shall not be out of order if I cite as one example of this the case which has received wide publicity this weekend in respect of the R.T.Z. smelter at Bristol where lead poisoning has occurred at levels that can affect not only the employees of the firm concerned but the community, and, if the test results made available are correct in the Severn Estuary itself. Here is an area where there is a divergence between profit and loss as it appears in a company's balance sheet and the social benefits or disadvantages as they affect the community as a whole. The environment represents an absolutely correct and legitimate and, indeed, urgent area where the Government should be spending money now to create employment as well as to meet the main objectives which I have mentioned.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman's interesting speech. I want to ask him whethter he would not just pay credit to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the other Ministers for all the work they have ever done. I can do all the criticising, but it becomes awfully boring to hear from the right hon. Gentleman nothing but criticism, without his saying anything about the achievements which there have been. I would like to hear what he has to say about what has been done in a very big way indeed.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady is always a colourful contributor to our debates, and everybody likes to be loved, and we all love her for her contributions, but I think she will recognise that I am at present identifying areas where Government intervention is desirable. Of course, it is true that in all these areas there is some Government intervention, but what I am arguing is that in this area of the environment there is scope for even further intervention. We all recognise that the Secretary of State for the Environment is extremely keen to promote the environment; but in that, he is building on the work done by the previous Government, which, in their turn, built on work done by Governments even before that.
  In looking at the five areas which I have identified it is obvious that the case

  69
  for Government intervention and public enterprise in all of them is growing daily stronger. The Government themselves recognised this by nationalising Rolls-Royce, though their handling of the operation left much to be desired and some people were badly hurt. In the case of shipbuilding, Govan Shipbuilders will be private enterprise only in name, because of the public assets going into it, and probably £10 million to £20 million of public money on top of that. It is the experience now of other countries, notably Italy, that public enterprise plays a large part in causing employment to develop. Even the French regard their side of Concorde at Toulouse, itself a nationalised industrial enterprise as part of their regional development programme. For the reasons I have given, the nationalised industries have very great advantages over private industry in their capacity to advance investment to meet this problem.
  Even if these major changes cannot be announced at once, there is no doubt that there must be more orders advanced from the public sector for machine tools, particularly pre-production orders, and an advancement of orders for re-equipment from the nationalised industries. As has been urged by my right hon. Friend and I, and others, in recent weeks and months, cash grants should be re-introduced to stimulate investment, certainly during the next 12 months, the regional employment premium should be maintained and some means of channelling investment into industry through national sources should be found.
  Whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite are still as resolutely opposed to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, I do not know, but I do know that in present circumstances a growing body of opinion in industry and the City is convinced that there must be some agency which will allow the Government to stimulate investment through a public body. We require also the clear decisions on aircraft and shipbuilding to which I have referred.
  The Government have been in power for more than 18 months. During that period unemployment has risen to the highest level since the war. Scotland, Wales, the North and the North-West have sunk to the lowest levels they have experienced in many years, and the blight
  70
  has spread to the prosperous regions. Engineering has slumped, investment is stagnant, confidence has hit bottom, if The Times is to be believed, and industrial relations, measured by days lost, have been a great deal worse than they were during the period of Labour Government.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Leeds on Friday, in a curious moment of frankness, is reported in The Times in these words:
  "Mr. Barber admitted that unemployment had risen by more than he had expected."
  That is the first breakthrough of candour that we have had from the Government Front Bench.
  The Amendment which is before us must be the most complacent of any that could have been visualised, given the gravity of the circumstances that face engineering and the people of this country generally. Because the Amendment is as inadequate as the Ministers who have promoted it, I urge the House to vote for the Motion.
  5.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognising the problems of heavy industry following five years of almost total economic stagnation, welcomes the steps Her Majesty's Government have taken and are taking to restore confidence in the economy, with the object of providing increased employment, greater price stability and a sound basis for future expansion'.
  This is a timely opportunity to consider the problems which have been besetting certain groups of industries. It is important that these problems should be faced and tackled, and this is what the Government have been doing in consultation with the bodies representing the industries.
  Unfortunately, the previous Government were disposed to pretend that some of these problems did not exist instead of facing up to them. Indeed, the Opposition are clearly misguided in the Motion which they have tabled. It is misconceived in its terms, and the Amendment which I have moved will assist the Opposition towards reality.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) commented on

  71
  the Ministers who are to take part in the debate, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and I together cover a wide range of the industries referred to in the Motion. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East raised, for example, the important question of the environment and measures against pollution. I am the Minister who is entirely responsible for these matters in Scotland as the counterpart of the Secretary of State for the Environment who has responsibility for environmental matters in England. I do not think that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will complain about that. I am very much aware of the importance, in planning for new industries and the installations which they bring, of the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised about the environment and pollution.
  The most difficult problems for the three groups of industries mentioned in the Motion have undoubtedly arisen from the severe inflation which was raging in 1970. Because these industries plan and work over longer periods than most other industries, they were hard hit by sharply rising costs. Moreover, it became difficult to look ahead, and this inhibited new investment.
  When we took office we found the economy in a deep-freeze, following a low rate of growth and monetary squeezes. But we were also faced with a wild wave of inflation caused by the sudden burst of wage demands after the abortive statutory incomes policy of the previous Government. One of our priority tasks has been to curb that dangerous inflation; and we can now see that the country has succeeded in reducing the average rate of wage settlements.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: In this context, does my right hon. Friend remember that in July. 1967, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said—and this is an accurate quotation—[Laughter.] If hon. Members check the words, they will find they are absolutely right. He said that if there is devaluation, any attempt by organised labour to obtain wage increases must be ruthlessly resisted.
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is correct in his recollection. It rings a
  72
  chord with me as having been said at that time.
  We can also see that, as a result, price increases in recent months have also presented a much better picture.
  Perhaps no industry has suffered more from this bout of severe inflation than the shipbuilding industry, owing to the long-term nature of its work and contracts. With the success of our efforts in the battle against inflation, and the reduction of the general trend of wage settlements, we are probably doing more to help the shipbuilding industry than we could in any other single way.
  One of the effects of the rapid increase in wage rates over the past two years has been the large-scale shedding of labour by industry. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described this in his speech in the House a week ago. While there has been a massive shake-out of employment during the past year or so, productivity in the past year rose by as much as 5½ per cent. This is the new phenomenon which has contributed to the distressingly high unemployment figures. We are now having to deal with an entirely new element in unemployment, especially in the manufacturing industries.
  I must point out, however, that one of the groups of industries being discussed today, the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, has not, in the last two years, in Great Britain as a whole, reduced the number of its employees. Indeed, since 1969 the numbers of employed have increased by about 3,000 That is the difference between the numbers employed in September, 1969, and last November.
  While the shipbuilding industry has great problems before it, largely arising from very steep inflation, it has not fewer people in total employment now than it had in 1969. It is in fact employing more. On this point, therefore, the Motion tabled by the Opposition is both defective and misleading.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a breakdown of the figures?
  Mr. Campbell: I shall be dealing with particular problems and the future in a moment. In manufacturing industry as a

  73
  whole employment has fallen by as much as 4½ per cent. in the last year.
  Mr. Douglas: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with his argument, will he give the House a breakdown of the figures between shipbuilding and ship repairing? Secondly, if we are moving on to a period in which inflationary wage demands, as he calls them, are having very little effect on the shipbuilding industry, will he guarantee that the shipbuilding industry will be able to quote fixed price contracts against the rest of the world?
  Mr. Campbell: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures: 153,000 in September, 1969, and 156,000 last November. The breakdown is in regard not only to shipbuilding repairs but boat building. I will arrange to let the hon. Gentleman have the whole breakdown. There are a number of figures and I cannot give them now. As regards fixed price contracts, this is for the industry itself to decide; but when it is up against inflation at the sort of rate which was reached in 1970, it is difficult for it to know what costs are going to be for a period of four years ahead and to make contracts of that kind.
  In manufacturing industry as a whole there has been a reduction in employment by about 4½ per cent. This has led to the sort of unemployment figures which we have seen this winter and which we in the Government deplore. We are determined to get rid of this high unemployment, but it is clear that it cannot be cured only by the kind of measures which have been effective in the past. Many firms are evidently ready to increase production without necessarily adding to their labour forces. One of the main objectives is to increase the growth rate of the economy, and there are already signs that this is happening.
  Mr. James Sillars: In helping the House to understand the Government's difficulties, could the right hon. Gentleman say what growth rate would be required in the United Kingdom be fore we got full employment in Scotland?
  Mr. Campbell: This is a calculation which economists would find it difficult to agree about, but I understand that economists are suggesting a growth rate this year of about 5 per cent., and every-
  74
  body is agreed that this would be in the right direction. In this way the human resources and skills which have become redundant can again find employment.
  We want to change as soon as possisble a situation in which many families are experiencing the misfortune of having one or more of their members on the dole. My right hon. Friends and I are acutely aware of the unhappiness and insecurity which unemployment brings. Our policies are designed to promote the new investment which provides lasting jobs, producing goods and services needed in the modern world. Indeed, we must aim for the goods and services which are positively in demand in the world today, and will be in the future.
  No Government have ever pumped so much money into the economy in so short a period, or advanced so many projects particularly in the areas needing special assistance. Besides the figure of £1,400 million a year of tax cuts, the abolition of restrictions on hire purchase and reducing Bank Rate, the measures have included £160 million of advanced public works in the development areas—about £60 million is extra expenditure on roads—accelerated capital expenditure by the nationalised industries of £100 million, and, not least, £80 million of advanced naval and other Government shipbuilding.
  Advancing this shipbuilding programme will help the shipbuilding industry in areas of high unemployment. In particular, a large proportion of it has been placed with firms in Scotland; namely, the Scott-Lithgow group, Yarrows and Robb Caledon. Only last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced that certain transport orders worth several million pounds were being brought forward to the next two years, including ferries, which will provide more work for shipbuilders. There were also orders placed for 100 Bulldog aircraft, and this wil lhelp Scottish Aviation.
  I turn to regional development. The Government have been tackling high unemployment in particular parts of the country. After reviewing the situation on taking office, we made a number of changes to increase the effectiveness of regional measures as a whole. High priority was given to the acute problems

  75
  of the older industrial areas and assistance was extended considerably under the Local Employment Acts. More flexible use is now being made of the powers to make loans under those Acts and of the powers to give grants. The rates of building grants to new factories and extensions have been increased, and they can now be as high as 45 per cent. The 40 per cent. initial tax allowance for new industrial building is being continued indefinitely, instead of reverting to 15 per cent. as the previous Government had intended.
  An important change has been the introduction of a new system of free depreciation in the development areas. This enables the whole expenditure on new plant and machinery to be written off in the year in which it is purchased. Moreover, it can be carried back against the trading profits of the three previous years, and, if necessary, it can be taken forward to later years. Free depreciation has also been extended to the service industries in the development areas.
  The importance of this system of free depreciation has been emphasised by industry. Recently the Scottish Council drew attention to its value as an incentive for the re-equipment of industry with capital goods. Increased activity in the capital goods sector is likely to have more Effect in the development areas than elsewhere.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated during the debate on the Address, the Government are studying alternative options in regional development, and this is a progressive and continuous process. But it must be borne in mind that the investment decisions of industry are made more difficult if too many changes in the system are being made too often.
  I turn to the shipbuilding industry. The Government's aim is to promote the ability of the industry to compete in world markets. The assistance given generally to the industry is broadly comparable in amount to the average given by other shipbuilding countries to their industries, for example through the Home Shipbuilding Credit Scheme and the Shipbuilders' Relief Subsidy. In certain respects encouraging progress has been made. The merchant order book
  76
  approaches 4·5 million gross tons, worth £680 million. The naval order book is worth £400 million, of which nearly half is represented by export orders. The major yards in the industry have work for at least two years and some substantial orders thereafter.
  A wide variety of ships are being built. In particular, Harland and Wolff, Swan Hunters and Scott Lithgow are competing in the big ship league. Inflation has hit the industry hard, but it is now being brought under control.
  In certain respects the United Kingdom industry still faces serious problems. Labour relations remain a vital area in which both sides of the industry must co-operate to achieve much higher levels of productivity in the yards. It is disturbing that the output of the industry over the last five years has remained very much the same, at a little over 1 million gross tons per annum.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is satisfied with the existing order book of the British shipbuilding industry when compared with previous years?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I am not satisfied, but I am stating what the situation is. It is more encouraging than some reports which have been circulating would suggest. I should like to inform the House about the latest situation on the Upper Clyde where there are special problems.
  Captain Walter Elliot: It has been said that we aim to help our industry by an equivalent amount to that which is being provided by foreign Governments to help their shipbuilding industries. Since there are many subtle ways of subsidising industry which are used all over the world, has my right hon. Friend an efficient method of finding out all about them and estimating what is required?
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend raises the question of subtle and perhaps not obvious ways of assisting industry. The information which I have is that on average in the assistance given to our ship builders we compare broadly with what is done in other countries. There are some countries which give more help and some which give less.
  In regard to the situation on the Upper Clyde, since the sudden application for

  77
  liquidation last June by the U.C.S. company, progress has been made with the proposals we outlined in the debate on 2nd August for a successor company based upon the Govan and Linthouse yards. A feasibility study was commissioned by the Government to include examination of the question whether the Scotstoun yard could be included. The result of that study is expected shortly.
  A tragic and severe loss was sustained by the death of the chairman of the new company, Mr. Hugh Stenhouse, in a road accident. He had already become dedicated to making a success of the new project, and his energy and enthusiasm quickly spread to others. This was an untimely setback. But we have been extremely fortunate in the arrival of a new chairman, Lord Strathalmond, who is also imbued with the determination to make a success of Govan Shipbuilders and so to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of Clydeside.
  The Government have provided the liquidator with working capital and have given certain guarantees to shipowners to enable them to confirm orders. The liquidator has consequently been able to continue work in the yards of the former U.C.S., while plans for the future are under consideration.
  The liquidator and the Government have also been in touch with several concerns which have been interested in the Clydebank yard. The most recent is the lively interest shown by an American company, Marathon Manufacturing. It is interested in acquiring the Clydebank yard for the construction of oil rigs, and representatives were in this country last week investigating practical aspects of this. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry saw representatives of the company last Friday after their visit to Glasgow. The Government have taken great trouble with the liquidator to attract concerns and to interest them in the Clydebank yard, and I reject strongly a suggestion to the contrary which I thought that I detected in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The new company, Govan Shipbuilders, is preparing proposals to be put to the Government. An important condition for the launching of the new company is that efficient working practices should be agreed between management and unions. Negotiations on this will need
  78
  to be completed soon to avoid any hiatus between the finishing of former U.C.S. ships and the takeover by the new company of yards from the liquidator.
  When a system of working practices has been determined, the rate of throughput of ships should be faster than the yards have experienced hitherto. This will mean continuing work for the suppliers. While the number of men working directly in the yards on the Upper Clyde seems likely to be reduced, we must remember the men working for the suppliers also. If, for some unfortunate reason, Govan Shipbuilders were unable to get started, many jobs outside the yards would also be affected.
  Mr. Douglas: We keep telling the right hon. Gentleman that.
  Mr. Campbell: I have said it before, but it needs saying again. I said it at the beginning of August in this House.
  I need not emphasise how vital it is that the conditions should be met soon to enable Govan Shipbuilders to get going.
  The redundancies at U.C.S. since June have been something over 1,000 so far. However, the evidence from the latest figures registered is that the unemployment from shipbuilding and ship repairing on Clydeside is now no higher than it was last March before the liquidation of U.C.S. Alternative jobs are available at Yarrows and Scott-Lithgow. The latter will be taking on several hundred more men, though the vacancies will not precisely match the trades becoming redundant on the Upper Clyde.
  Mr. Buchan: Then, where is the right hon. Gentleman's 1,000?
  Mr. Campbell: It was suggested by some last summer that U.C.S. could have continued in being with a further £6 million of Government assistance. It is now all too clear that this is a fallacy. It would have needed a great deal more than that. The liquidator found debts of about £32 million. Of course, about £20 million from the taxpayers had already gone to U.C.S.—far more than any special assistance to any other individual shipbuilding company. That £20 million has disappeared. It did not go into capital equipment but, apparently, went towards meeting losses.

  79
  When Govan shipbuilders gets going, as I hope it soon will, it is our intention that the money provided by the Government will be for constructive purposes.
  Mr. Buchan: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Clydebank situation and the work that the Government had been doing behind the scenes. Clearly, one of the problems in establishing Govan-Linthouse—and, we would expect, Scotstoun—is the argument that the four yards must be dealt with before discussion takes place. The Government could assist now if they said openly and publicly that if a reasonable offer came from one of these American firms to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred Government support would be Forthcoming to support the Clydebank yard. It is vital that the right hon. Gentleman should say this openly and directly.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to me on 2nd August when I said that the Government were prepared to make assistance available which is available under the Local Employment Acts and in other ways for any such new venture. The interests which have come forward—there have been at least four in recent weeks, and there were others before that which ceased their interest—looked at Clydebank with a view to different purposes. The present one is oil rigs. Another one which has been interested for many weeks was concerned with a new form of tanker for liquid gas. Therefore it is not possible to give any definite terms until proposals come forward. All that one can say is that the normal assistance from the Government under the Acts is there and will be available, and that each concern can look at that, applying its own plan.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Clydebank yard is the key to the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders. I think that the anxiety felt in Clydeside is that if the Government take only the Local Employment Act money on a very strictly limited basis and leave out of account the enormous social costs involved in allowing Clydebank to slip out of the industry, they will not get a measure of the true economics of supporting Clydebank with some new owner. The House wants to know
  80
  whether the Government are prepared to think flexibly about the amount of money necessary to re-launch Clydebank, for the reasons that I have given, and also to make possible the establishment of Govan Shipbuilders with Scotstoun included.
  Mr. Campbell: The Government are always willing to think flexibly, and we have been doing a great deal to attract possible firms from different parts of the world, as well as this country, which might be able to use Clydebank in a number of different ways, and not simply for building ships. But we have also made it clear that Government assistance in the usual form as applied to a new project is available. However, it is difficult until one has a project put forward, whether it be for oil rigs or for liquid gas tankers, to say how flexibly the Government can approach the project. There are a wide variety of possibilities on Clydebank. The Marathon company has entered the scene only fairly recently, and the Government are doing their best to help it size up the problem. We very much hope that that company will find that this is a yard in which it can make the kind of oil rig that it intends.
  That brings me to the new oil industry in the North Sea. It calls for skills associated with shipbuilding. Only one company, B.P., has so far announced its plans, but there is clearly a major oil field in the North Sea. Conditions are more difficult than in any other maritime oil operation. The depth of water requires the largest platforms in the world for drilling and extraction. Highly specialised knowledge and techniques are needed, from experts and companies who lead the world. But valuable work and services can be provided from Britain.
  Already there have been rapid developments in Scotland. Following B.P.'s announcement, there is clearly work to be done on pipelines and expanding refinery capacity. Planning authorities have been able to grant permission quickly while watching amenity and other considerations. I have myself been able to give planning permission quickly to Messrs. Brown and Root/Wimpey at Nigg Bay, where that concern is to build these giant platforms, one of which has already been ordered from it by B.P.—
  Mr. Douglas: Two.
  Mr. Campbell: One from this company. No time has been lost in finding a site, applying for planning permission, and then getting the contracts.
  Another international firm which is a leading specialist in this work has applied at another site in Scotland. Platforms are also to be built on Teesside. Each of these new installations will employ several hundred men, and some of the skills needed are those which we can readily supply. The important point is that this construction work will be taking place in Britain, much of it in the North and East of Scotland. Each of these platforms requires a huge quantity of steel—it has been said as much as for a large liner.
  On the steel industry, the House is aware of the general position concerning the investment plans of the British Steel Corporation. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry confirmed the situation on 16th December. The corporation is unlikely to reach a conclusion on the question of major new capacity until the summer. The review which it is near to completing will provide an assessment of the longer-term level of demand, but there is no question of the Government reaching a decision until we have received proposals from the B.S.C. In the meantime, the options for the whereabouts of any major new steelworks remain open.
  I must make it clear that there was no foundation whatever for a report which appeared in the Press last Friday to the effect that the Government had abandoned the idea of a new integrated steelworks in Britain, irrespective of whether the site would be in England, Scotland or Wales. I do not know where that false rumour started, for there has in fact been a recent decision of quite another kind. I refer to the announcement made today by the British Steel Corporation that it has decided upon an ore terminal at Hunterston. I am sure that the House will welcome this news. It means that the B.S.C. will now start immediate talks with the Clyde Port Authority on this project.
  I am especially pleased, as hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will know, because after the protracted public inquiry I granted planning permission for an ore terminal and deep-
  82
  water port and zoning for industrial development at Hunterston. In addition, last September the Government joined the newly formed Hunterston Development Company in financing a project study designed to establish the feasibility and costs of reclamation required to develop the full potential of Hunterston.
  Dame Irene Ward: This is very good news. Our ore terminal on the Tyne has been moved to Teesside. Therefore, I should like to know what we are going to get regarding an ore terminal which is just as important to Tyneside. It is interesting to hear about Scotland, but I should like to hear more about Tyneside and Teesside.
  Mr. Campbell: I will make sure that my hon. Friend's question is referred to the British Steel Corporation. I did just now mention that one of these very large new oil platforms was being built on Teesside.
  Dame Irene Ward: I heard my right hon. Friend say that.
  Mr. Campbell: But the news from the British Steel Corporation today happens to be news for Scotland. That is why I referred to it.
  Mr. Buchan: We should have more debates like this.
  Mr. Campbell: Because of the increasing use of mammoth ships, the deep-water asset at Hunterston has the capability of providing an ocean terminal for Britain and a trading gateway to Europe. Nowhere else round Britain's shores can sheltered deep-water berths be made available for what I would call leviathans up to half a million tons without need of dredging. The potential latent here in the Lower Clyde must now enter into the assessments of developers of industry of all kinds and of the Government.
  Returning to the steel industry, the British Steel Corporation announced last year its short-term projects, including Llanwern and Ravenscraig. At the same time, it is confronted by the need for necessary modernisation. This entails the progressive closing down of obsolescent plant, with attendant problems arising in some of the areas concerned.
  In July we announced the Government's intention to encourage mineral development in this country by contributing to

  83
  costs incurred by mining companies engaged in proving our mineral resources. We have now introduced measures which are geared to meet the special needs of companies engaged in this activity, and the necesary legislation has been passed by the House. Under this legislation, we are offering financial incentives amounting to £25 million with provision for a further £25 million by order. This has been welcomed by the metal mining industry and by others engaged in mineral exploration. It is already having a stimulating effect on the level of activity. If my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will forgive me, I should point out that Scotland stands to gain especially, because of the considerable mineral wealth which is believed to be awaiting discovery there.
  The Opposition's Motion simply does not stand up to examination. The shipbuilding industry, as I have pointed out, has not dropped in employment in the last two years. On the contrary, it has gained about 3,000 jobs. Furthermore, any damage to the industry has arisen directly from the calamitous rate of inflation caused by the last Government's policies.
  Regarding the iron and steel industry, there has been very little investment in re-equipment over the past eight years. The Motion speaks of uncertainties; but the steel industry had the greatest uncertainty possible because of nationalisation hanging over it, and it was made a political football by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Today the steel industry must catch up with modernisation if it is to compete in world markets. This means that for the same amount of production fewer men are needed. This modernisation of the steel industry is now happening at the same time as the general shake-out in the engineering industries which I have described.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Why is it that, with the copious references to Scotland and the equally copious references to development areas, the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference at all to intermediate areas? May I remind him that I represent an intermediate area which depends upon the engineering industry for its industrial sustenance.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will find that I used the generic term
  84
  "assisted areas" to cover all three types: special development, development, and intermediate areas. I should make it clear that, in a speech which I have tried to keep to the usual Front Bench length, I have not attempted to cover all the many aspects which could be covered in this wide subject.
  Mr. Alex Eadie rose—
  Mr. Campbell: Let there be no mistake—
  Mr. Eadie: Since the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to give way to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter which rests between the two hon. Members concerned, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.
  Mr. Campbell rose—
  Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order—[Interruption.] This is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Eadie: May I suggest—
  Hon. Members: Sit down
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said that his was a further point of order. There was no previous point of order.
  Mr. Campbell: I had no intention of being discourteous. I have already given way to many hon. Members during the debate—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too many."] I hear someone say "Too many". I did not see the hon. Gentleman. If I had seen him rise, I would have given way. I give way now.
  Mr. Eadie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Since he has given us very good news today, since he is talking about jobs and unemployment, and since his hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who has some responsibility for the mining industry, will be winding up the debate, will he assure the people who will be subjected to power cuts that something will be done to bring the miners' strike to an end?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will have detected that I have touched

  85
  on a large number of subjects. I was not going to touch on the coal industry, which lies within the responsibility of my hon. Friend.
  Let there be no mistake where Scotland is concerned that Scottish industry and commerce have made it clear that they are in favour of Britain joining the European Economic Community. They intend to go for the opportunities which will be open to them with membership. Given encouragement, the leaders of Scottish industry with vision and enterprise will succeed in getting more orders and increasing business. I am not one of those—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—who say that joining the Common Market will solve all our problems—not at all—but it gives us much wider scope to operate in this vast, rapidly expanding market. Those working in Scottish industry will respond with the skills and energy they possess in good measure. There is no place for gloom and defeatism in this.
  There is no doubt that the three groups of industries have to face new demands and conditions in the world, but they can now do this with confidence. First, they can do so because inflation has been curbed, and that can now clearly be seen. Second, they can do so because new opportunities are open to them arising from membership of the European Economic Community and from new prospects such as the developing undersea oil industry. Third, they can be confident because there is a Government determined to promote growth in the economy and to encourage these industries to modernise and overcome their difficulties.
  5.51 p.m
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I have not before had the opportunity of following the Secretary of State for Scotland in a debate, but doing so on this occasion leads me to have sympathy with some of my Scottish friends who have to deal with the right hon. Gentleman on Scottish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman concentrated a large proportion of his speech on Scotland but I think he will agree that the debate goes wider than Scotland and covers all regions and parts of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no need for any gloom, but he made that statement in what seemed to
  86
  me to be a rather gloomy way. We are faced with the problem of 1 million unemployed. We are faced with a rundown in our major manufacturing industry of engineering on which we depend for our exports. My hon. Friends representing areas such as Scotland, Wales and the North-East have been plagued with unemployment problems for a long time, but we are now meeting the problem of unemployment in what used to be regarded as the more prosperous areas, such as the Midlands, the North-West and even the South-East. All those areas are being affected by what is happening in industry.
  We are told that the problem stems from structural changes in industry, but structural changes are nothing new. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, which was only comparatively recently, industry has undergone structural changes, sometimes under boom conditions and sometimes under conditions of depression. Changes have taken place and, as my hon. Friends have said, those changes have been brought about by market forces over which the industries have had no control. With our inherent skills in technology and craftsmanship it is an absolute crime that we are not producing to the full in order to meet the demands of people all over the world and at the same time improve our standards of living.
  A sane man is bound to ask how such a situation has arisen. I know that under the Labour Government we were faced with the problem of increasing unemployment and that there were many arguments about what might or might not be done to deal with it. I think some of my right hon. Friends would admit that some of the Labour Government's policies were wrong and that more imaginative policies should have been adopted. But surely everyone will accept that the Labour Government were not in the hopeless situation in which they the present Government find themselves, because the Conservative Government merely wring their hands and announce that, unfortunately, unemployment is increasing. The Government say that they have injected a certain amount of money into the economy, but it is not producing results.
  Despite the industrial situation, we are still seeing booms in other sectors. There is still a property boom. There are all sorts of ways in which capital is being

  87
  increased, and there is still financial speculation, but there is no investment in order to produce more employment. I think we must examine the problem in the labour-intensive industries. In the name of rationalisation attempts are being made to close down labour-intensive firms. In the present situation that is criminal.
  I have spent the greater part of my life as an apprentice and craftsman in the engineering industry. The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial relations and to wage inflation. What he did not tell the House was that bad industrial relations in the engineering industry are due to the engineering employers being too archaic and being unwilling to accept that we are now in 1972. He did not tell the House that the Engineering Employers Association is not prepared to sign a new agreement with the engineering trade unions which would give workers some dignity and rights within their own plants.
  The engineering employers have withdrawn from the proposals to set up a new agreement in the engineering industry. Time and again during debates in the House hon. Members have said that the York Memorandum is unsatisfactory for modern industrial relations. That memorandum was imposed upon the trade unions at the time of the lockout in 1921 and 1922. There is now a chance for a fresh start in the engineering industry, and the trade unions have leaned over backwards to try to improve the situation. The Government for their part have brought in the Industrial Relations Act and an industrial relations code of conduct, but they have not dealt with the central issue, which is that of introducing the status quo for workers. The Government have dodged that issue because their friends in the industry are opposed to it.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about high wages being at the bottom of our problems. I have always believed in a high wage economy. Recently an agreement was made in the tool-making industry in the Midlands whereby toolmakers are to receive £52 a week. They are possibly the highest paid craftsmen in the country. The firm is prepared to pay that money, not because of extortion or blackmail but because its unit costs are
  88
  low. The trade unions which negotiated that settlement were right to do so.
  I do not want to spend too much time on what I might call the general politics of the engineering industry but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said, there has been a 6 per cent. reduction in the labour force and 100,000 people leave manufacturing industry every year. The rundown is accelerating, and we must, therefore, take positive steps to overcome the problem.
  I now propose to say something about redundancy. I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's comments on what the workers and the shipyards have done at U.C.S. Trade unions are often criticised, but the trade unionists at U.C.S. and elsewhere are fighting not for more money or the standards to which they are entitled but for the right to work. They say that when a community is built up on a particular industry, no one has the right to make it derelict by a stroke of a pen. This is not the north of Scotland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but Clydebank in 1972. Workers there are exerting their right in a highly intelligent manner, with which I and many of my hon. Friends are pleased to be associated. They are not out of the wood yet, there are difficulties to come and perhaps some heartaches, but they have set a fresh pattern for British industry.
  The Government will make announcements tomorrow or on Wednesday about retraining for the unemployed. I am in favour of retraining, but in the greater Manchester area craftsmen who have followed the same trade as their fathers and grandfathers are moving on to the highest technological tools and working to the highest precision limits. One such skilled craftsman I know is now pushing a brush in a foundry. This is wastage and very wrong socially. It is no good talking about retraining when those who are already trained, the lifeblood of our industry and our nation, are being thrown out.
  The Hawker Siddeley aircraft firm, despite increased orders, made 350 people redundant last week. A total of 1,100 people—400 due to wastage—finished at the British Steel Corporation works at Irlam on 31st December, 1971. Churchill Machine Tools Limited, which is now a

  89
  subsidiary of Alfred Herbert, has been in the Salford and Broadheath area for 50 years and its precision grinders are second to none in the world. It has an order book of £2¼ million, with enough full-time work to last it into 1973 and 1974. But, in the name of rationalisation, Alfred Herbert's want to close the firm and transfer some of the tools and highly skilled workers to Coventry.
  In a B.B.C. North programme on televisison, the managing director said that his first duty was to his shareholders and that social consequences were the Government's responsibility. That is as irresponsible as anything that the iron-masters said in the nineteenth century. One cannot contract out like that. The shareholders will not suffer.
  In a firm which has an exceptional industrial relations record, the Churchill workers decided to fight, like those at U.C.S., Fisher-Bendix and Plessey. They are not fighting selfishly. The shopkeepers, the local authority, and everyone in the area are supporting them. This is not just one firm of 1,100 men. Other firms with apprenticeship and training arrangements in the area could go, and this could take a lifetime of industry and development from the area.
  About two years ago, those workers would probably have taken their redundancy pay and, after a week or two, found another job with G.E.C., English Electric and A.E.I. But there are no such jobs for them now. There are hundreds of skilled engineers signing the vacancies book in the greater Manchester area. It is particularly difficult to place fitters. They have nowhere to go. Skilled members of my union branch who were made redundant about eight months ago have not yet found alternative employment.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East referred to the Churchill struggle and the intelligent way in which those men are fighting to maintain employment. At the Alfred Herbert plant in Coventry, where some workers are on a four-day week, they have refused to take the work from Broadheath and are standing by the lads who are fighting to keep their factory open. That is true trade union solidarity.
  The Prime Minister recently visited the North-West and following his visit there was correspondence between him and the
  90
  North-West Industrial Development Association. I have never read such a trite and complacent reply as that which the Prime Minister sent. His reply was unanimously rejected by that all-party body, which has Conservative and Labour members, trade unionists and industrialists. The situation is deteriorating rapidly and there is an urgent need for something to be done.
  One cannot divorce many of these closures and the lack of investment from the question of the Common Market. I believe that many large firms are holding back investment so that they can have free movement of capital later on. Some of this rationalisation is only a drawing-in from the outer regions. The Secretary of State said that the Common Market would have a good effect on Scotland. I doubt this, but other areas will be affected because there will be a tug towards the centre of a new industrial oligarchy in South-East Europe.
  The key to our problems was summed up by the managing director of Albert Herbert, who said that his responsibility was to the shareholders. Our responsibility is to the industry and its workers. A future Labour Government must be far more positive in this respect.
  We must take a firm hold of the free enterprise society which has failed and which, without direction, continues to fail. When the Government want some form of reflation and when they want to inject money into the economy, it goes into the public sector. We need a much larger public sector so that the economy can be much better planned. There might be many arguments about the form this should take; we could argue about ownership, direction, and workers' participation. Many experiments could be tried Some of them would be successful.
  Working people will not go back. They will reject this laissez faire society which is based on accident. The Government take some action; they put so much money out, so much of it into the private sector, but they have no real control over it; they do not know whether it will produce results; they merely hope that it will provide employment. We need a much more positive approach.
  This debate is pertinent to the general argument. It is to the engineering industry—the manufacturing side—that we

  91
  must pay attention. The workers in the industry, with their skill and organisations, have something to offer the country. We must get our priorities right so that those who produce the wealth in our society get their just rewards.
  6.11 p.m
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I commend the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) on his fluency—a fluency which I cannot match because of a rather heavy cold. The only hon. Member who dare sit near me is my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) to whom I gave the cold last week. I can only hope that through the air conditioning my germs will waft across to hon. Members opposite.
  I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland refer to the new phenomenon of high productivity yet high unemployment. It is on this problem in the engineering industry that I shall concentrate.
  I want first to make a critical comment on the relationship which is accepted as standard between the theory and the facts of unemployment in engineering today. Successive Governments have found no substitute for the standard Keynesian dogma about the way in which unemployment problems of the type we face today can be solved. What J. K. Galbraith called the conventional economic wisdom has stood through decades without challenge, whilst education, consumer expectation and technology have surged forward. Today's economists still greatly rely on the teaching they heard 20 or 30 years ago, which was itself based on the experience of the 1920s and the 1930s. Nobody then appeared to be able to cope competently with the empty shipbuilding yards in Jarrow any more than the last Government's rationalisation could cope with the problems of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders forty years later.
  The strategic and tactical effects of this widening gap between an understanding of what is happening and the reality of events is, I am convinced, a major factor in causing the unemployment which exists today, particularly in engineering. Unemployment is more than just one
  92
  man out of a job or 1 million men out of jobs. It is a scar which is carried forward throughout that man's life and usually, as happened in the 1930s, into the lives of his children. It reflects upon the whole enterprise of the man and his family and his willingness to take risks at a time when it might be to his benefit to do so.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West asked what are the structural changes which are going on. Two new factors have emerged as realities in engineering over the last 10 years. Both of them should have been anticipated rather than just observed. The first of these has had a tactical effect and the second a strategic effect.
  There is, first, the cumulative effect which arrived rather suddenly of two decades of active labour-saving investigations. They stemmed from the wartime experience of United States productivity and the encouragement which took place, particularly in the few years after the Second World War, when teams from the engineering industry in Britain went to the United States to study laboursaving processes.
  There has, second, been the outflanking effect of advancing technical knowledge on traditional jobs and on traditional industries. The whole idea of time and motion study was to get more production from each person. There is nothing particularly wrong about that, because at the end of it employees generally get some form of bonus, whether it be of the "stop-watch, I'm all right Jack" type or, at the other end, management systems like the Pert management control system.
  As the hon. Member for Salford, West said, there has been a decline in labour-intensive industry demands in Britain, not only because of the time and motion study experience but also because of the competition which those very industries have experienced from abroad. Lancashire has to compete with India, Clyde-side had to compete with Japan. Coventry and Oxford had to compete with Wolfsburg.
  Acting against this problem throughout much of the 1960s was the propensity of management to hoard labour, both on the shop floor and in offices. The consequential effect on wages and the

  93
  bargaining power of unions, particularly unions like D.A.T.A., had to be seen to be believed. The skilled employee rapidly discovered that he had only to threaten to go to work for a competitor and he was soon given a fairly sensible and handsome pay rise.
  The trigger which broke that hoarding of labour can be traced to selective employment tax. It did not do what it was intended to do, which was to displace people from service industries and get them into production. It ate up companies' cash resources which they should have been using for new investment in plant and machinery and in the extension of factories.
  I commend to the Government the Swedish Government's attitude towards encouraging investment and their capital equipment investment scheme—not so much as an investment incentive but as a proven means of minimising the bad effects of a business cycle.
  In the 1960s it was the wage pressure and the tax pressure combined which forced managements to shed their hoarded labour. A very successful industrialist in the motor car industry said to me recently, "What we have done now is to shake a tree which we should have shaken long ago. We are not going to have those people again."
  These shake-outs have swept the engineering industry and have brought unemployment to people who in the last decade were actively encouraged by managements and unions alike to believe that they were worth far more in the market place then they now find they are. This is the particular tragedy of the unemployed white collar worker who has been swept out of a job which he would have held on to in the 1930s, but in the 1970s he finds that he must go with the rest. In terms of Keynesian economics it has been a blow to the heart-land, at the general theory of consumer boom economics which relied particularly on tax reliefs being spent quickly. There may be a consumer boom in suburbia, but it does not give a job to the man across the street who is out of a job.
  What is missing all the time in engineering is the growth of new enterprise, because only that will provide jobs for the white-collar workers as well as for the unemployed skilled tool room opera-
  94
  tor. I believe that the opportunity for providing new enterprise lies in an examination of the new types of technology which have come forward and the growth in effective knowledge on jobs. A recent American study showed that between 1750 and 1900 the world's total store of technical knowledge doubled. It doubled again between 1900 and 1950, and again between 1950 and 1958; and it is now doubling every five years. Thus it has increased 10 times while economics has virtually stood still over the last 30 or 40 years.
  The laws of supply and demand and of diminishing returns are all still there, even if they are not often recognised by either management or unions in this country. They are there, and it is unfortunate that neither the standards of understanding of the unions nor, frequently, those of management have advanced at the same rate as the technology surrounding them.
  I believe that environmental pollution is a typical and visible by-product of this problem. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is not here at the moment, because I wanted to advise him not to bother to read the Sunday Times a week after Private Eye had published the story of what is going on at Avonmouth. Here was a typical example of unfortunate collusion between unions and management. Had it not been for a doctor appointed by one of the unions, who held out rigorously over a long time to make sure that the real threat was disclosed, it might have been swept aside completely. It is a tragic state of affairs and I hope that the Government will cause an investigation to be made into what has happened at Avonmouth in order to solve the problem quickly.
  There is no doubt that the rapidly changing and growing body of technical knowledge has not been adequately applied in Britain. We have concentrated our attention on preserving old industries without a parallel application of attention to opportunities for using our new knowledge to progress those old industries or found new ones. This goes right back to education, which too often today, I believe, fails to equip pupils adequately with the basic knowledge for them to hold any job, let alone equip them for a life in which, because of the

  95
  rate of change and the amount of change, they will have to cope with the need to change their jobs several times, let alone have the ability to field several skills. We need a revolution of understanding in education authorities of the real world in which their pupils have to seek, hold and change jobs.
  Recently, I went through an experience which, no doubt, all hon. Members undergo. I met some sociologists. From two separate universities they told me that they were feeling thwarted at the mid-point of their training by a sudden realisation that nobody had jobs to offer them when they completed their courses of study. When I was an apprentice in engineering 25 years ago, I was told repeatedly that all that I learned would lead me to an ability to master one skill alone, when I knew, and all my friends knew then—as all those who are apprentices now know—that training over a four-year or five-year period would enable one, and does enable one, to take on several skills in different factories and in different types of business. Over 25 years attitudes in education have changed far too little, while the needs of employers have been, and are, changing fast.
  We must in our education and training processes guarantee to people that they will be taught subjects relevant to what employers predict they want and what they will be able to find when they leave school or university. Above all, we must give them the educational flexibility to be able to cope with changes in employment. Nowhere is the need more apparent than in engineering today.
  The Government's predicted retraining plans will be of great help to those now in need. I hope that the schemes will become a permanent part of our education process, as retraining will be a far more frequent need for people as part of the normal pattern of their working lives.
  Heretofore, I believe, all the effort has been directed towards higher productivity from reduced labour forces. I hope that we can now move on rapidly to apply the same concentration to the production of new business enterprises in engineering, to utilise the great advances in world technical knowledge, advances which are there and waiting to be used. Environmental conservation, I believe, is
  96
  one area of knowledge and enterprise which is crying out for attention.
  In the encouragement of new engineering enterprises—although I am as delighted as anyone to hear of the new orders for shipbuilding, oil rigs, aeroplanes and roads—I feel that it is far too often assumed that it is the big industries which need help and stimulus because that is where the growth lies. This is not true in engineering today. What one does by giving new orders to them is to maintain their current employment, not increase it. From my own experience of trying to manage an advanced technological enterprise, I believe that one comes to realise that the optimum size of company is usually quite small, something like 200 or 250 persons, and that it is impossible to manage efficiently anything on a much larger scale.
  One of the most valuable advantages of British entry into the Common Market will, I am sure, be the opportunity and ability of specialist engineers to find and found firms which will be able to supply the larger market of Europe, something which they certainly could not do if Britain remained at its current market size. But the intervention which I hope the Government will be able to provide should not be of the I.R.C. type such as hon. Members opposite have suggested. That, surely, after Rolls-Royce and Beagle, has been proved to have been a disaster in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The Common Market is only a year away for Britain now. I hope that the investment incentives which are needed in engineering will be diverted to those ways by which we can help new firms to start up.
  Investment incentives and tax reliefs do not help new companies, but cash in any form can. New engineering opportunities are needed and are possible now. I know of many unemployed skilled engineers who would sweat their guts out if given the opportunity to get going in a new company. It is far better for a Government to put their money into work rather than into unemployment pay.
  In conclusion, I give one example to show where such enterprise could be fostered: that is, the monitoring and control of pollution. How many study contracts have been placed by the Government with private industry so far? Such

  97
  contracts could found whole new businesses quickly, with markets across the world. Engineers do not get sympathy from the City if they go there to look for finance. Are the Government prepared to accept the challenge and act? They have shown that they will step forward in placing orders with shipbuilding and the larger heavy engineering companies. Small engineering companies could use the same chances now.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) will forgive me if, save for my good wishes for his quick recovery from a bad cold, I do not follow his observations further. This is a composite debate and, representing the constituency which probably has a greater concentration of shipbuilding than any other in the United Kingdom, I wish to deal with the particular problems of the shipbuilding industry.
  Last year, 1971, was a good year for the Wear yards, and we are completing the modernisation of the yards. But this does not help us in our serious unemployment problem. As a result of modernising the yards, we have year by year had a few hundred fewer men employed than the year before. Moreover, although we have orders up to the end of 1973, the industry, despite what the Secretary of State said, has lost its buoyancy. Indeed, the Minister for Industry himself warned the industry only the other day it is now going "through a difficult period".
  The Government have not helped. We had all the uncertainty last year about credit guarantees. A glance at the order book for last year leaves one in no doubt about how much it was affected. Only a year ago the Minister was joyfully anticipating the demise of the Shipbuilding Industry Board and telling the industry that it could hope for no further help from the Government. That was unacceptable to the industry, not because it was a begging-bowl industry but because, among other things, it has no tariff protection, unlike manufacturing industry generally. I have a Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency, and I supported the action the Government took, but the shipbuilders have never had the aid and support that the aircraft industry has had.
  98
  The most important factor of all is that by and large the shipyards are in the development areas, and we cannot divorce policy about the shipbuilding industry from development area policy. I am happy to say that the Minister has now eaten his words. It is a practice I commend. A few days ago he told the industry—a blinding revelation—that "the Government, of course, must help". I am delighted to hear that, and I shall encourage him. The Government are indeed helping. The £75 million naval programme has been brought forward. Unfortunately, that does not help us in Sunderland, because we do not build on naval contracts and there would be no good reason for us to do so. There are also the £1,000 million credit guarantees with improved arrangements which do help and are very important.
  But internationally the pressure is on, as the Minister has said. That is the fact of life that we must face. The Governments in the countries competing with us in shipbuilding will intervene where and to the extent they think it is necessary to protect their own shipbuilding industries. We need not expect any advantage from the revaluation of the yen, because the Japanese will make certain we do not receive it.
  I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in regretting the ending of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and I call the Government's attention to the specific recommendation of the Geddes Report that:
  "The Government should obtain advice from the Shipbuilding Industry Board on the impact on the British shipbuilding industry of the various measures of State assistance and protective devices used overseas."
  I invite the Government to do that. They have in Sir William Swallow someone with unparalleled experience. They should ask him to inquire into the matter and evaluate the prospects of State assistance in competing shipbuilding countries and recommend to the Government what countervailing measures they should take.
  Mr. Douglas: I hope my right hon. Friend does not want in any way to diminish the importance of the work of the staff of the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I have great respect for Sir William Swallow, but would not my right hon. Friend suggest that what we really need

  99
  is the continuation of the Board and the comprehensive expertise it has gained?
  Mr. Willey: I have argued this in previous debates. Unfortunately the S.I.B. has been brought to an end. I make my suggestion as something that I hope will be acceptable to the Government. I accept my hon. Friend's point, and when I mention Sir William Swallow I also have in mind the staff who have worked with him.
  In the shipbuilding industry we have a basic national industry competing in one of the greatest, if not the greatest, postwar international growth markets. In 1948 we were completing just over half the total tonnage completed in the world, yet today we are completing just about 5 per cent. Britain, which once dominated this great world industry, finds that not only is the total United Kingdom production one-ninth that of Japan but that we have fallen to fourth in the league table, and we are being hard pressed by France. What is particularly significant is that in world competition generally in industrial goods all our major competitors have gone out for shipbuilding. Who competes with us in world markets for industrial production? The answer is Japan, West Germany, Sweden and France, all countries that saw the possibilities of the world shipbuilding market and went for it.
  Let us consider the position since the Geddes Report. We may say that the British industry has enjoyed a moderate success since then; we can claim that we have increased our output by about 200,000 tons. But in that period the Japanese have increased their enormous production by a further 5 million tons. In other words, since Geddes the Japanese yards alone have increased their output by four times the total British production. Sweden and Germany have each increased their output by about 1 million tons and France has more than doubled her output.
  I regard all this as a measure of the failure of development area policy. We should not have apathetically accepted no better target than to prevent ourselves doing worse. We should have said. "Here is an opportunity for us to expand employment and help tackle development area problems." The position has been
  100
  tragic over the past few years, because every one of our major competitors has had difficulties over skilled labour while we, in the development areas, in the shipbuilding districts, have had hundreds and thousands of men stood off and idle. A determination that this basic national industry should at least keep pace with our major competitors, to be no more ambitious, would have done far more for the development areas and would have cost no more than the building a few factories for foot-loose industries. It would have dealt with the basic problem of the development areas.
  Fifteen or 16 years ago I published a plan for shipbuilding which later was largely endorsed by the Geddes Report. It was a pity that did not come earlier. But I did not regard the plan as a solution to the problem of shipbuilding; only as a beginning. I pleaded in addition for new forms of public aid and partnership, not to stifle enterprise but to get a deliberate, concerted effort so that we could create an expansionist industry which would take the opportunities in the world market. That would have afforded the basis for a far more effective, dynamic, development area policy than that which has been pursued by successive Governments since the war.
  Let the Government prepare and announce a Geddes phase II programme. Let them do no more than accept the very modest target that Geddes set the industry, which should have been attained by now, of 12½ per cent. of the world production and with an output of 2¼ million tons. Let us at any rate make an effort, if it be no more, to make up the ground we have lost since the Geddes Report.
  I am concerned because of my constituency, because of the development area in which it happens to be. I am sure that such action by the Government would do far more than anything else to bring back hope to the North-East Coast.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who speaks with great knowledge of the shipbuilding industry and who has, I know, contributed a great deal to the thinking about it in the past. I speak as a Member representing an

  101
  area in the West Midlands, where there is suddenly a high rate of unemployment, and as a man who is involved in engineering in various areas in the country. Before I get into what I want to say, however, I commend to the Government the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren). Undoubtedly one way in which Government money could be used now rather than in the lavish ways suggested by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is by getting study contracts going on new potential development industries. This is a very important idea.
  Several years ago, when we were in opposition, I put forward a case for the need for us to get into the oceanographic business, to do research, development and application there. There was a great deal of talk about it but nothing happened. Today most of the machinery and application in the North Sea is American plant. I believe that this was an incredible dereliction of possibilities by the last Government.
  I want to turn now to the real problem which faces us. I believe that the decline in our heavy engineering can be pinpointed from 1965 onwards. A mass of statistics has been produced about investment, the number of machine tools installed and the reduction of employment in our traditional labour intensive industries—mining, engineering, aircraft and heavy transport—but I want to produce a new thought which I do not think has been published before. It is perhaps the best way of measuring the situation which has developed is by the consumption of electrical power at work load average throughout the country. I agree that the peak load has risen enormously because of the huge number of cookers, television sets, heaters and so on which we now all possess in the affluent society. But one of the most notable figures that one can study is that of the standard loading since 1965, which has remained almost constant—that is to say, the amount of electrical power we are using has not increased very much since then.
  I believe that the graphic picture is one of a constant flat trajectory. The growth, where growth has arisen, has been not in heavy industry but in light engineering and service industries. This is the main problem facing those of us
  102
  taking part in the debate. It is very well borne out by the figures of what the Central Electricity Generating Board has been purchasing over this period. Let us look at its order rate for distribution switchgear.
  In 1964 it was at a rate of £30 million per annum. Over the period from 1969 to 1971 it dropped to the annual average rate of £12 million for 1971—at 1964 prices, a rate of £8 million. For transformer switchgear, the figures are just as bad, and those for heavy transmission transformers are even more devastating. In 1965 the rate of ordering was £22 million per annum. In 1970 it was £5 million and in 1971 it was £2 million. No wonder there is unemployment in a town like Stafford, which produces the finest transformers and heavy and light switch-gear in the world. This is as good a measure as any of the problems facing us. The increase in the gross domestic product has been almost wholly in light and service industries, using less power and producing more units at a more profitable cost.
  There are some, including the Economist, who suggest that all that is necessary is to achieve a general growth in the economy and all will be well. It is also suggested that all can be put right by the massive retraining programme which the Government will announce tomorrow. Both these proposals are very useful and excellent. The trouble is that they have only a marginal effect on the huge investment not simply in machines but in people and skills engaged in our heavy engineering, aircraft, heavy electric and other traditional, labour-intensive industries which have made this country famous throughout the world. I believe that this is the measure of the problem facing us.
  At this point I want to say something which I believe to be important when I allude to what happened under the last Government. I believe that every Government must avoid any unnecessary acceleration of latent structural change, but this happened in a devastating way with the last Government's handling of the aircraft industry. It is possible for people to get together and say, "We see in the future that this country cannot afford a shipbuilding industry", or an aircraft industry or whatever it may be. But for the Government

  103
  to take action which anticipates or hastens the death of those industries is almost the height of political folly.
  I take as one example the supreme folly of destroying the labour-intensive aircraft industry. If the TSR2 had been kept in being until it was clear whether the American rival, the F111, would fly instead of the TSR2 being destroyed—jigs included—which was what the last Government did, and if the P1154 had been kept as a project, we would not only have made a heavy profit in our exports, running at between £750 million and £1,000 million, but we would have kept between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs. Too much foresight by intellectual planners can be as disastrous as too little. I hope, therefore, that the present Government will not become involved in bringing forward the demise, which need not be demise at all, of some of our traditional industries. What the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said about the shipbuilding industry I take as true from him. Many of these things could be saved.
  For this reason I congratulate the Government on their proposals for new shipbuilding and on placing orders for more Nimrod aircraft. But the question remains, is enough being done? Is it enough just to rely on a consumer-led boom? My fear is that in the next 18 months we are not likely to see the take-up in investment that many people imagine. In the engineering industry there is a great deal of talk about orders but it is fair to say that orders are at the moment simply not being placed.
  My fear is that, if we do not act now, when we do act it will coincide, God willing, with a major pick-up in world trade and that, therefore, we could have a major overheating of the economy between 1973, 1974 and 1975. That may be politically advantageous but it would be a disaster to be forced back into a stop-go situation.
  It is most important for something to be done now to increase investment and I suggest that there are two wide areas in which the Government can act. First, the Government must do much more to speed investment at home. Secondly, they must make the export of heavy industrial goods easier than it is. Our problem today in the export of heavy industrial
  104
  goods is not in our skills or our management, or even in our prices. It is frequently in the financial arrangements, in which we simply do not compete with the Japanese, the American, the French or the Germans.
  It is no good just hoping for the much-needed reversal in the trend of company profits. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that one of the reasons for the downturn in investment has been the downturn in company profits, which not merely languished but diminished between 1965 and 1971. I believe that there is not enough around to make a vast jump now into the machine-tool industry and the reinvestment which should be taking place.
  More than has been suggested is necessary. On 13th December I made a rather long speech on this subject and my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench said that they would look into what I suggested. However, they have not written to me about it. If they would look at it again I should be grateful, because there were some good suggestions about ways in which to speed up investment.
  In spite of free depreciation, which is an advantage, I believe that the time has come to return to investment grants in selected areas. We cannot be held up by some parliamentary or political shibboleth from doing something which is clearly the fastest way in which to get investment in machine tools going again. It should not be for ever. I agree with my right hon. Friends that investment grants are not as good in the long term as other forms of allowance, but there is a crisis and orders for machine tools are dead beat and the only way in which to get the orders moving again is by having investment grants. I do not think they should be for ever, but if they were only for two years investors would jump in to get them, and if they did not jump in within that time they ought not to be able to get them.
  Secondly, I hope that my right hon. Friends will consider my suggestion that when a machine tool is finally written off—and this accounts for the tremendous switching-round of machine tools which occurs in Germany and Japan—when the item is balanced and the machine tool is sold, a large part of the proceeds of

  105
  that sale ought to be regarded as not subject to taxation. That would mean a quicker turn-round and an increase in the machine-tool market.
  In my speech of 13th December I agreed with many hon. Members who said that the regional employment premium must be kept for the regions and that it could not be allowed to wither away in 1974. This is especially true now that we are moving towards the Common Market. The Government ought to look much harder at relaxing the conditions for industrial development certificates. They talk about everything moving forward, about a general increase in the gross domestic product and about retraining, but the only way in which places such as Stafford and many others in the Midlands can be revived now, because of the changes in machinery techniques and in management techniques, is by arranging for the labour there to be employed, to he gainfully employed and well employed.
  If I.D.C.s are refused to certain companies in the Midlands, I seriously believe that the development of those companies will occur not in the areas about which hon. Gentlemen are concerned, not in Northumberland or in Inverness, but in the Pas de Calais, where there is now high unemployment, or in the Ruhr coalfield, where 200,000 miners are threatened with the loss of their jobs. I hope that Ministers will consider that very carefully. If they do not allow I.D.C.s to go to the West Midlands, industry there will invest not northwards but in the South, in areas which are the distressed areas of Germany and the distressed areas of France and where it will get aid and help to do so. I hope that these matters will be carefully considered.
  I want finally to deal with overseas trade in heavy equipment. Here we are being outgunned not industrially, price-wise or technically, but financially. As the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested, Britain may no longer rule the waves, but the whole trouble is that Britain refuses to waive the rules. Everyone else does. Everyone else fills in the gaps and everyone else considers what action will be most baneficial to him. The one country which does not do that is this country. Let us show some proper national interest when considering
  106
  the small print of international agreements in exactly the way that Hermes does in Germany or as the French export guarantee organisation does. I do not want this country to be destroyed by too much piety by moth-blown civil servants.
  The E.C.G.D. has to take more risks. The time has come for a review of the whole structure of our export finance to bring it into line with political and economic purposes and with unemployment, as well as with benefiting aid overseas. The developing world still needs an enormous amount of installations and as things are it will get them from the Japanese on 30 years' credit. We have to make a move, not to lose money—the E.C.G.D. has not lost a penny piece yet—but to change the structure of the arrangement.
  For instance, in future the E.C.G.D. should cover sub-contract work by British firms working with European consortia. After all, we are going into Europe—or we are supposed to be—and one would have thought that the one thing we could do would be to get the E.C.G.D. to cover British firms doing sub-contracting work for British consortia, but at the moment we cannot. I have written to the Minister about that.
  Secondly, E.C.G.D. should be able to cover local work—that is to say, to finance a local contract. When a sugar plant is built in Venezuela, the machinery costs £1½million but the local construction work costs £2½ million. The German Hermes and the French organisations will guarantee that kind of local construction work but all the E.C.G.D. can do is to guarantee the British exports. We have to come into line with the Europeans in that respect.
  Another area in which we have to come into line with the Europeans is to offer an insurance against cost escalation. Hermes and the French offer up to 15 per cent. but we offer nothing. Lastly, we have to do some better matching, in the time span and in interest rates offered, with foreign credit organisations.
  Those are steps which I seriously recommend to the Government. It is no good waiting for things to happen. If we do, not only will unemployment and depression snowball until they are even worse but this under-utilised capacity and this under-used manpower, because of

  107
  the effect of the Government's inducements to a boom, will result in an overheated economy by 1973, 1974 or 1975. There is not much time: the time for the Government to take appropriate action is now.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Carter: It is purely fortuitous that I follow the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) in this debate. I was invited on Thursday last week to address a meeting this morning of English Electric workers who are threatened with redundancy in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. He is probably as concerned about that redundancy as anyone, but it serves to highlight the situation in the West Midlands when a company like English Electric, after being merged with A.E.I. and G.E.C., is in a parlous condition and when its order book is such that it is laying people off, not only in Stafford but throughout the West Midlands.
  When I first entered the House in June, 1970, Birmingham was extremely prosperous. Given certain weaknesses, that prosperity was fairly evenly spread across the city, as across the whole of the West Midlands. For the past 40 years the prosperity of the people of Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands had been gradually rising, with minor fluctuations, to the point which it had reached in June, 1970. But since then the situation has dramatically changed, not only in Birmingham but in the whole of the West Midlands. In Birmingham the unemployment figure has doubled and now totals 37,000 which is equivalent to 5·6 per cent. of the employable population. The same percentage applies to the West Midlands.
  When I became a Member of the House the West Midlands was the third best region for employment. Now it is the third worst, exceeded only by Scotland and the Northern Region. In the City of Birmingham 8 per cent. of the population is unemployed. While the position in the West Midlands is serious the situation in Birmingham is worse. We have 27 per cent. of the working population of the West Midlands in Birmingham but 34 per cent. of the unemployment—just over one-quarter of the
  108
  working population but over one-third of the unemployed.
  The situation is worse when we look at the level of vacancies in the city. There are 26 men on the unemployed register chasing each vacancy. That is unparalleled in Birmingham and has never been known in the West Midlands. An even sadder aspect is that 66 per cent. of all unemployed men have been unemployed for eight weeks or more. Unemployment is a tragedy for any region, community or individual, but it has come as a sad surprise to people in Birmingham who have enjoyed over 40 years of continuing prosperity.
  The people in Birmingham—this is probably true of the West Midlands too —were entirely unprepared for this. The unions were not organised to assist; they did not know much about unemployment statistics or the placing of men or unemployment services within the unions. The same applies to the Department of Employment offices in the city and throughout the region. They had to learn an awful lot in a short time. If that city and region cannot prosper, what chances has the rest of the country?
  Centred in the Midlands are some of our keenest export earners in almost every industry, principally in the industries we are discussing today. In representing Birmingham I do not represent simply any city; I represent probably the world's oldest industrial city. Birmingham, the Black Country, the Midlands, gave the world industrialism. It is now being hit by the second wave of a process of industrial change that has hit first our basic industries such as coal-mining, shipbuilding, textiles and is now going forward into the manufacturing industries which predominate in the West Midlands, more so than in any other part of the country. This is shown by the fact that 60 per cent. of all employment in the area is in the engineering, metal goods and vehicles sector whereas in the rest of the country it is less than 50 per cent. and in some cases considerably less than 40 per cent.
  It follows that many of the problems we face are directly attributable to our historial past. People in the West Midlands are not as prepared for change, even if it is round the corner. People are brought up in a total engineering

  109
  environment; children are almost born with a tool kit; women traditionally work alongside their men. It may be that this is partly the reason why the region has some in-built inability to change and attract new industries. It is finding it difficult to attract even modern forms of engineering. The Government must learn from the many mistakes that successive Governments have made when dealing with the rapid decline in Britain's traditional industries which have led to problems in the coal industry, shipbuilding and textiles. The lesson is that when these industries go into decline, Governments must act at every stage to protect the livelihood and well-being of communities that have lived for generations with these basic industries at the centre of employment opportunities in their area.
  If the Government cannot help or are reluctant to do so, a community can do precious little to help itself. I hope that in the West Midlands, in dealing with what I am sure will be the continuing problem of the second wave of industrial change—which might accelerate when we enter the Common Market—we will look seriously at our way through what is sure to be a long, hard and bitter struggle to accommodate change.
  It is not just that aspect of employment and industry in the West Midlands that has caused the present difficulties. Many others were put to me and other people at a conference which I organised in the City of Birmingham on 14th January. That conference was attended by every section of industry, the University of Birmingham, trade and commerce, trade unions—everyone with an interest in the welfare of the citizens of Birmingham. It was rather heartening, at a time when there is a great deal of cynicism about public life and in particular politics, that everyone who attended believed that unemployment was a pernicious evil that we in political life should do our best to get rid of at the earliest opportunity.
  That did not prevent people from being critical of government at central and local level, trade unions and industry. As a result of the conference a working party was established when we got down to the job of putting forward solutions to local and central government. A number of reasons were given, quite apart from
  110
  the historical ones, as to why we were finding difficulties in the West Midlands. It was unanimously agreed that the Government bear the prime responsibility for the level of demand within the economy.
  We were addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) who has admitted that the last Government made a mistake when forecasting the projected levels of demand within the economy. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the Government were wrong. I believe, and the conference in Birmingham believed, that the Government have not accurately gauged the potential level of demand in the economy. I hope that before the Budget, or at the latest in the Budget, the Government will take measures actively to stimulate demand.
  We in the West Midlands can point to continuing uncertainty about the likely effects of our entry to the European Economic Community. It was interesting that at a chamber of commerce luncheon in Birmingham which I attended with other Labour Members on Friday not one leader of commerce in Birmingham, including the president, could say categorically that Birmingham or the West Midlands generally would benefit from Britain's entry to the E.E.C. On the contrary, doubts were expressed about future employment in the city and in the region when we go in.
  I hope that the Government will consider carefully the possible effects of our entry on regions like the West Midlands which will have to compete directly with the washing machine manufacturers of Italy, the motor car manufacturers of France and the chemical manufacturers of Germany. Perhaps in time, a decade or more, Britain will find her place in the Common Market. I hope that she does, even though I voted against entry. But we can by no means be certain that in the short term the benefits which have been held out by the Government and others will follow.
  Inflation has hit industry in the West Midlands, particularly the labour-intensive industries. The cost of labour has increased. It was made clear at the conference and at the chamber of commerce meeting on Friday that industrialists are looking to labour as the quickest, surest and easiest method of

  111
  containing rising costs. There is the question of over-manning, with labour being thrown on the market. There is a different balance of forces in the economy, and industrialists are more prepared to get rid of surplus labour.
  There is the question of restructuring, of which we have had a great deal in the West Midlands. It has affected the constituency of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone. People in Birmingham and other parts of the West Midlands were affected by the A.E.I.G.E.C. merger. It will be a good thing in the long term, but I am sure that many people who were made redundant and were given "fat' cheques as a result thought that they would find employment immediately. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
  A large metal manufacturing firm, Delta Metals, has been shutting down factories throughout the City of Birmingham and reorganising its manufacturing and distribution capacity. B.S.A. has closed major factories in Birmingham. British Leyland, after the merger in 1966, has gone through a long process of rationalisation in almost every sector—employment, manufacturing capacity, technique, and so on. All these things have hit an economy which was operating at a near zero growth rate. It was inevitable that labour would suffer.
  Then there is the economic philosophy of the Government. They have either watered it down or departed from it. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went about his job in a violent way initially. We heard about "lame ducks", "subsidised incompetence", and so on. The philosophy got across to the board room, whether it was intended or not, and industrialists believed that they should tackle pressing problems in the spirit laid down by the Secretary of State—"When in doubt, fire." That might be disputed by the Government, but, unfortunately, Governments of both political parties have a habit of creating economic and social climates and before long people believe them and act in accordance with what they say or do.
  The pattern of world trade is changing. It was a popular joke at one time that if we bought a candlestick in Cairo or a pair of brass snakes in Delhi we would,
  112
  on turning them upside down, find the imprint "Manufactured in Birmingham." That is no longer true. At the lunch which I attended on Friday, having had a pleasant meal in the dining room I examined the cutlery which appeared to be made of Sheffield stainless steel. I turned it over and looked at the imprint, which read "Made in Hong Kong." I pointed this out and there was some laughter about it. Apparently, it was believed when the cutlery was bought that it had been manufactured in Sheffield, but no doubt the firm, Vintners, which had its mark stamped on it, finds it cheaper, more economic and more profitable to have it manufactured in Hong Kong and then sell it in this country.
  The changing pattern of world trade hit the shipbuilding, textile and many other basic industries. It has now hit industry in the West Midlands, and, despite the protective wall which the E.E.C. will put round us, goods from under-developed countries will come through that wall and will affect areas like Birmingham and, no doubt, the South-East in a profound way.
  Because of the low demand for labour, recruitment in the West Midlands has been affected. Many thousands of young people in the West Midlands are unemployed. Last year in one area in Birmingham about 40 school-leavers failed to find employment.
  That is the picture in the West Midlands. There are many other reasons why we have high unemployment. Stripped of sloganising and examined in the cold light of day, it is a massive problem which can be tackled effectively only by the Government. But that presupposes that the Government are prepared to take on the task. When the Conservative Party took office, judged by its pronouncements the competitive forces of the market place alone would solve our economic problems. I hope that the Government have put that philosophy behind them.
  I commend to the Government a series of short-term measures to deal with unemployment. The aim would be to mount a massive programme of public works: first to take up the enormous amount of unemployment in the construction industries, and secondly, to generate a higher level of wealth in the local

  113
  economies. I should like to see a massive urban renewal programme. The cities of this country of ours are in many respects a disgrace. Anybody who has travelled on the continent and compared our cities with continental cities must, I feel, be ashamed at the squalor in our cities, many of which had to withstand the Second World War and should afterwards have been largely and immediately pulled down. Housing, therefore, is an area which could and should be tackled as a social need, and yet at the same time it would provide valuable employment opportunities. The roads in Birmingham are in a pretty parlous condition and could be greatly improved.
  There is desperate need, too, for improvement in our schools. Announcements have been made about a renewal and rebuilding programme for primary schools, but much more could be done in knocking down and rebuilding secondary schools also. There are also the hospitals, many of them Edwardian or Victorian buildings, and certainly not the kind of buildings in which modem medical practice should be carried on.
  Then there is the question of retraining. An announcement is, I believe, to be made tomorrow, but it will be a drop in the ocean compared with the size of the overall problem. What one must emphasise is that we do not retrain people to put them straight into the dole queue. We must see that there are jobs for them at the end of the day and I would, on that, emphasise that in a situation like this it would be far better if men were trained or retrained on the job rather than in special institutions which we might set up for this purpose.
  Another problem which the Government could tackle and immediately find a solution to is that of ordering in the capital goods sector. We are desperately short of orders in the machine tool industry. The capital goods industries at present should have greater incentives for companies to order capital goods of this kind. This would be of great assistance to the West Midlands economy.
  I would urge the Government to study carefully two recent reports on the West Midlands economy and its future, one published by the West Midlands Planning Council and the other by the West Midlands Planning Authorities Conference. Both of those documents charted a course
  114
  for the West Midlands area in the coming quarter century or so. As those two documents adequately and most professionally demonstrated, we in the West Midlands need a far more diversified economy than we have. As I said earlier, 60 per cent. of the employment in the West Midlands is bound up with the motor industry, which will inevitably suffer in the coming years. The situation, to my mind, as those two reports show, calls for a more planned approach on the part of every authority concerned, but principally the Government, to ensure that in 15 or 20 years' time the West Midlands is not the industrial desert which so many of the areas of our formerly profitable and traditional industries are.
  If nothing else comes out of this debate I sincerely hope that this cardinal factor does, that to deal with the rapidly changing economic and industrial structure we must have far greater planning than the Government so far have been prepared to introduce and support.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): As a London Member I feel some trepidation in entering into a debate on unemployment since, fortunately, in Greater London the unemployment rate is about half that in the country overall. Yet there are some problems in London which deserve the attention of the House. We in the Walthamstow area—in Waltham Forest—have seen our unemployment pool double its usual figure, and perhaps it would be useful if I told the House something about our problems and put forward one or two thoughts that we have for putting the situation right.
  At this moment there are 2,438 men and 215 women out of work. Normally our unemployment figure is about 1,000 persons. Since my constituency has within it a variety of works, mainly light engineering, but one factory, producing power transformers, some of the problems facing those companies are not dissimilar to the problems facing industry throughout the country.
  What struck me most forcefully about the figure of our unemployed was that 38 per cent. of the men and 27 per cent. of the women were unskilled, and that one-quarter of those men and one-third of those women are within 10 years of retirement. In other words, the largest single proportion of unemployed in my

  115
  constituency and within my borough are unskilled and within 10 years of retirement. I believe that the two categories probably overlap, and present one of the most difficult and intractable categories of unemployment in this country at this moment and probably for the foreseeable future. This is a point I want to come back to later in what I have to say.
  Before doing that I should remind the House of some of the problems of unemployment and redundancies which have been caused by the takeovers which other hon. Members have mentioned, and because of falling home and overseas demand. In particular we have seen three major companies either close down or in course of closing down. One of them, B.X.L., has closed down. One, Micanite, was involved in the G.E.C.A.E.I. merger and is being phased out, as is Ever-Ready in the not far distant future. The closing down of B.X.L. meant the unemployment of 900 people, and the closing down of Every-Ready will mean another 600. There has been a cut back at London Electric, a company involved in making electric wires for industry. These are all considerable blows, as anyone will appreciate, within a single London borough.
  So here I feel I should pay a particular tribute to the employment office in Walthamstow. It is a fact that most, if not all, of those people who have found themselves either declared redundant or unemployed within the area are being or have been absorbed into other industries in the area. The site offices which the employment office has set up at Micanite, B.X.L. and Ever-Ready have proved a particularly effective way of meeting unemployment before it has come about, because once a redundancy or unemployment notice has been given to an employee the site office has taken action and, using the London job bank, has been able to assist him before he actually found himself out of a job.
  A man who has lost his job in his own locality will often be faced with having to take a job outside his locality which will involve him in travelling and the disruption of the life he has grown used to. This is a hardship and involves a change in family routine. It is therefore, better if we can maintain the number of jobs within the local industries. Therefore, rather on the lines of my right hon.
  116
  Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), I make a plea for Hawker Siddeley Power Transformers, which is far and away the largest company in my constituency, employing 1,000 people.
  That company is one of the main suppliers of power transformers in the United Kingdom, and its order book depends to the extent of 65 per cent. on orders from the Central Electricity Generating Board. Recently the C.E.G.B. has allowed its 54,000 mW programme, which was due to be finished in 1970–71, to slip to 1976–77. As my right hon. Friend said, this has made a great difference to the number of orders being placed for power transformers. Indeed, it has meant a drastic cut-back which is having a worrying effect on Hawker Siddeley Power Transformers.
  Whilst I appreciate that the C.E.G.B. will no doubt argue that it has adequate power for its foreseeable demands, certain of our older power stations are producing electricity at about four times the cost of the modern 550 mW power stations our older power stations produce electricity at about 2p per unit, against ½p per unit in the newer power stations.
  Although electricity demand necessarily reflects the requirements of our production industry, so that the slowing down in industrial growth is no doubt reflected in the C.E.G.B.'s programme change, I cannot help feeling that at a time when the rate of electricial expansion in West Germany is running at 8·75 per cent. and ours at only 5·25 per cent. the anticipated demand to which all our forecasts point should persuade the C.E.G.B. to bring forward its load requirement ahead of that demand. Indeed, rather than let the programme slip to 1976–77, I suggest the C.E.G.B. might re-think it, bring forward the target date and start placing orders now to meet that target. If this thought commends itself to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I hope he will exhort the C.E.G.B. to think about recasting its timetable within a period of months. I understand that there is a pressing need in the industry to know what the likely demand will be, and its future programme and the amount of labour it will require are tied up with those orders.
  The company to which I have referred is also concerned about its competitive

  117
  position after our accession to the European Economic Community. From that date onwards it believes it will be free to compete alongside European manufacturers for orders throughout the area of the 10 nations, but the company has a sinking feeling that it may not find itself in fair competition. Although this feeling may be no more than the natural doubt of any company that finds itself in a new competitive rôle, some reassurance is needed. It would be a tragedy if the firm found itself competing in this country against French and German manufacturers on a fair basis, while in Western Europe the dice were loaded against it.
  I suppose all our debates on unemployment turn on whether the Government's forecast of a boom to come is accurate, or whether we are "Waiting for Godot" and remembering that Mr. Godot never comes. Generally speaking, no attempt to expand an economy shows much effect for 18 months and, therefore, if in a mood of optimism I say that our 18 months are up and the boom should start, it is because I genuinely believe it.
  If I ask my industrialists when were the beginnings of the unemployment which is now so massive in our midst, they say that it started in 1967 with the realisation that, because of economic stringency, industry would have to tighten its belt, and one way of doing this was by looking at labour costs. If that is so, what we are seeing is not born of this Administration but the end of what started as long ago as 1967.
  Employers all say now that the cost of labour is a consideration which weighs more heavily in their minds than ever before, and that what happened in 1967 was both a lesson and a shock, and that industry required that shock to produce the shake-out of the surplus labour that it was carrying. It was a shock which they now welcome because they realise that they were overstaffed, and it is a lesson which has made them determined not to re-accumulate the labour force that they have so painfully slimmed down. This means that the concept of labour-intensive industries is probably a thought of the past and not of the future, and that, in an economy which is controlled by fierce competition and narrow profit margins, we must get used to an
  118
  industry that wishes to remain slim and efficient and sees surplus labour as something against which it should be continuously on its guard.
  The aircraft industry has been mentioned several times in this debate. That industry is an exact example of a labour intensive industry which has slimmed down its labour force and has no intention of taking on additional labour unless it really requires it. We can talk about the projects that that industry should have and argue that the Govern-men have not yet stated a new policy for it, though, to be fair, we must remember that the Marshall Committee is looking into the industry. But anybody in that industry today is realistic enough to admit that the aerospace industry throughout the world has over-capacity, that we have no right to expect ours to be the exception, and that the industry may contract further. However, whatever else it will not be, it will be more efficient than it has ever been in the past.
  It has been said in this debate that unemployment is looked upon as something of a social stigma by the person who suffers it. We must armit that it damages a man's personal dignity and also the man himself because he imagines that in the eyes of his family he no longer stands in their midst as the breadwinner. By the same token when a man is unemployed and is exhorted to be retrained, he may feel that the concept of retraining suggests that in some way he is not up to the job he has lost and therefore must be retrained for something else.
  I believe we must get away from these outworn and outdated concepts and must seek to show our labour force that if there is to be a dynamic and changing economy, then a man may well have more than one job during his working life and that this will become the pattern rather than the exception. We must get across the idea that when unemployment or redundancy occurs, this may be a time for a man to acquire a new skill, and this is where retraining comes in.
  I look forward with great enthusiasm to tomorrow's statement on the industrial training boards and on retraining in general. I believe those boards have begun to create something dynamic in our whole approach to our work force. We

  119
  talk about a right to work. We should also talk about a right to be trained or retrained to work. If we just say that a man has one skill and if he cannot use it he must be doomed to unemployment, then we are not doing our job in the House of Commons. A man or woman should have the right to feel that the Government are seeking to develop their skills to the maximum and, if that is what is required, to place at their fingertips a new skill.
  If retraining and more training is the right way to get the best out of our labour force, it is a different problem when one is dealing with a person who has only 10 years to serve before he retires. It could be said that retirement should be brought forward to help those people, but that may be easier said than done. We must ask ourselves whether retraining is worth while if somebody has such a short time to go before retirement, or whether we should seek some other way of finding a use for the person's skills. If it is a question of declaring an older or younger man redundant, it might be better to make the younger man redundant because he is worth retraining and will be able to hold on to a new skill for the rest of his working life. The older person may find that he cannot get another job.
  However, I am convinced that the American idea of paying premiums to industry to take on a proportion of those who cannot get jobs is not satisfactory. The Americans have found that the net result of having this sort of premium is that people are taken on who are unemployable and industry holds on to them because it is not willing to go through litigation to get rid of them. The answer may well be to go in for something on the lines of State subsidies to industry to encourage it to take on people who otherwise would not find employment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that if hon. Members speak at great length it is impossible for the Chair to call all those who have waited throughout the debate.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I am mindful of the remarks made by the hon. Member for
  120
  Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), and, although I am tempted to take up some of them, I will resist that temptation and get on with the job before me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  The first thing to do is to give the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland some information about the employment of shipbuilding and shiprepairing workers in industry. I quote from paragraph 27 of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations:
  "In May, 1967 the numbers employed in shipbuilding on our definition were a little over 80,000 and the numbers in shiprepairing a little over 45,000 making a total of about 126,000. The fall in numbers over the three years 1967 to 1970 was therefore about 6½ per cent. in shipbuilding and 23 per cent. in ship-repairing."
  It goes on
  "In shipbuilding the biggest part of the fall in numbers took place between 1959 and 1962, by which time it was probably about 80,000."
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to give us some eclectically chosen figures and say that they include ship repairing, shipbuilding and boatbuilding and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. The facts are that shipbuilding, particularly in Scotland, has had a reduced labour force and this is what one would expect in terms of the increase in capital investment. If, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, we accept the idea that this is not a declining but a growth industry, then we should be seeing some upturn in terms of investment activity in the United Kingdom and taking a larger share of the total world trade.
  Let me give the Secretary of State a warning on the complacent and contemptuous Amendment that is before the House today. This contempt is seen not only among hon. Members on this side of the House but in every speech from the Government benches. We have seen no confidence on the part of hon. Members opposite that they believe that the Government's economic strategy will provide these industries with the kind of growth potential they deserve.
  The difficulty in dealing with Scotland and the regions is that if we seek to highlight unemployment we shall perhaps erode confidence. Yet at the same time, in face of the harshness of the

  121
  unemployment situation, we must ventilate our grievances through the democratic processes.
  Let me deal with the question of Japan, which now has some 50 per cent. of world output and its slogan is to achieve 80 per cent. by 1980. The Japanese will not do that without Government intervention. To indicate the degree of that intervention, I should like to quote from the Shipbuilding and Shipping Record of 16th July, 1971 how the Japanese have structured their orders:
  "During the last five years, a third of Japanese export orders was for E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. shipowners. But not a single ton has been built in Europe for the ' rising sun ' flag since the beginning of the century."
  Is that the way to cook the market? Is that free trade, or is it direct Government intervention?
  I am all in favour of playing to the rules, but the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that the advantages of Hunterston—and we applaud the announcement this afternoon about the ore terminal—relate to getting bulk cargoes of all types. This means relating capacities to achieve cheap bulk cargoes to the shipping industry. This is what the Japanese have done. They have looked at their economy and seen that they are importers of bulk cargoes. Therefore, they are capable of cooking world order books, carriage rates and shipbuilding prices. Although the Japanese moaned when the Europeans retaliated and gave fixed-price contracts, they followed suit and, even with the revaluation of the yen, are still giving fixed-price contracts. That is why I have asked the Secretary, of State a number of times whether this Government feel that British shipowners would be capable of giving fixed price contracts for a reasonable time ahead. I doubt it, not because of the competence of the industry, but because we have great difficulty in competing with the Japanese and with the structure of the Japanese market.
  We need a commitment that the Government will develop the port facilities at Hunterston not just for an ore terminal but for other cargoes. We want from the Secretary of State an assurance that if there are any port facilities developed at Foulness, Dungeness or anywhere else in the South-East, he will oppose the proposals in the Cabinet and resign if
  122
  his opposition is not carried. Certainly he ought to do that. That is what should happen if these developments are carried out.
  Let me now deal with the one bright spark in the Scottish economy about which the Secretary of State speaks at every conceivable opportunity. I refer, of course, to North Sea oil. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go to the conference at Aviemore in February and say what the Government intend to do to give Scotland a broader-based petroleum technology. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of speaking pleasant platitudes to industry, will say what the Government intend to do. We know that there are possibilities in developing rigs, and so on, but we must also recognise the immense possibilities in the construction of highly specialised ships. Whether they are built on the Clyde, Upper or Lower, or elsewhere is not my concern. There might be a case for liquefied natural gas carriers to be built on the Clyde. However, at the height of the U.C.S. crisis we had an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the proposed feasibility study would look at the market for liquefied gas carriers. The Ministers in that Department should know that this is a growth market and a highly complex one. Other countries are building liquefied natural gas carriers. On behalf of the industry, we want to know whether the Government are urging shipowners to have these vessels built in the United Kingdom.
  The Government have placed some orders in terms of defence contracts, and some yards on the Clyde and in the East of Scotland have obtained these orders. However, in Dundee especially there is still a regional crisis of high unemployment. Although Robb Caledon has received orders, there is still a possibility of redundancy in yards associated with the Group.
  Mr. Harry Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless Robb Caledon gets an order from the Admiralty very shortly a very serious redundancy problem will arise in Burntisland where two or three years ago the yard went into liquidation with the loss of about 800 jobs? Now there are only 80 persons employed there, and even their jobs are

  123
  in jeopardy unless something is done very soon.
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend indicates a specific problem. It may be that the good offices of the Department can be used to ensure that some of the work that Robb Caledon takes on board is dispersed not only to the Burntisland yard but to the Dundee yard, in view of the present high level of unemployment. The male rate is running at 12·3 per cent., and the local figure is 9·8 per cent. of the insured population of Dundee and Broughty Ferry.
  I want an assurance from the Government that this complicated type of vessel will be built in the United Kingdom. The relationship between naval and civil construction for this type of vessel is very close. Our naval expertise has been used to give a British company some advice so that it could have this type of ship built in France. Shell has ordered seven liquefied natural gas carriers but they are not being built in the United Kingdom. Instead, they are being built in France. Future ships should be built in the United Kingdom.
  We tend to look upon unemployment and some of the problems of retraining in terms of statistics. They are not statistics. A young man sat opposite me at my surgery on Saturday morning. He is unemployed, and he is getting £6·45. This is his budget: £4·50 goes to his parents, El goes on travel and fees for further education, and 50p goes to a shoe club, where he pays for clothing. He has 45p to himself. He came to see me to ask whether he could get assistance in the form of some payment towards his further education fees so that he could sit an examination. That is the face of unemployment in Scotland, and it is no use our talking in platitudes about retraining to young men like that who are the salt of the labour force. I am sure that other hon. Members can relate similar stories which show that young unemployed people are willing to be retrained and go into other industries if the jobs are available.
  We have to cure this problem of unemployment, and I challenge the Government to state that they are committed to full employment and to the right to
  124
  work. If they do not, the democratic structure of this nation is in peril.
  7.56 p.m.
  Miss Joan Hall: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) is no longer present, because I was interested when he spoke about the cutlery at the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce coming from Hong Kong. When I visit various firms I am always interested to see how much of their machinery comes from overseas. Employers talk to me about their problems and difficulties, and always I inquire why the firm has bought its machinery from overseas. In reply I usually get a rather coy grin and the explanation that it was not produced in this country, that it was cheaper to buy abroad or that the foreign supplier gave a better delivery date. To such a statement I reply, "Are you not sure that there is not a lesson to be learnt about the reason for your problems: someone is producing cheaper and giving a better delivery date?" Often I am surprised how readily people agree. Some of the firms which complain most are some of the biggest supporters of foreign industry in preference to British-produced goods.
  I make no apology for talking about unemployment as it affects my constituency, especially in engineering. On 10th January of this year, the official unemployment figures for the wholly unemployed in the Keighley employment area were 1,866. That figure represents 6·4 per cent. of men and women workers, and 9·2 per cent. of men. It is the highest figure since the war. In my area since the war there has been virtually no unemployment, and it comes as a greater shock and a more serious problem to those who suddenly find themselves unemployed than to those in areas which unfortunately have experienced higher unemployment over the years. I may say that the unemployment is mainly in textiles and engineering.
  I want to raise a number of points in connection with unemployment in Keighley. The first is that we have a tradition of good labour relations. A number of people have found themselves out of jobs because people in other parts of the country have demanded too much out of a cake which does not grow. It has not been the jobs of those other people which have been put in jeopardy;

  125
  it has been those of my constituents. We are in a fairly low-wage area. My constituents probably work for companies which are parts of larger concerns. When other people grab too much, certain areas have to be shut down and frequently the people who have not grabbed have to pay the price. That has happened to certain people in my area.
  I also regret, because I do not think it has been advantageous to Keighley, the mad rush over the last few years for mergers and the consequent thought that because something was big it was automatically the best. For too long we have had too much discriminating legislation against small companies. This has particularly hit companies in textiles. What has happened is that a close company has had to sell out and a large concern has taken over with a fanfair of trumpets saying that the jobs are secure and it will modernise the mill. Sure enough, five or eight years later, due to a change in world conditions, the factory in Silsden or in Keighley will be shut down and very good employees will find themselves out in the very cold unemployment market. I hope that the Government will take due note of the Bolton Committee's excellent report which has made some good suggestions, some of which have been put into effect; but a great many more will need to be implemented to help the smaller companies, particularly in Keighley.
  When one examines the unemployment figures, for all our civil servants and all the forms which people have to fill in, it is difficult to get a real breakdown showing how they affect one's own area. One gets a total, but what does it consist of? It would be much more important to have a breakdown than the over all figure.
  I find that older people particularly have little desire—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) mentioned this point—to change from one industry to another when they have spent their working lives in one sphere and probably in one factory, because often it means that they have to travel further afield. The skilled man particularly is usually prepared to wait until something turns up in his own locality. This often goes on for as long as six months, when the earnings-related benefit comes to an end. Of course while he has his redun-
  126
  dancy payment—which, if he has worked for one company for many years, can amount to a goodly sum—he can hang on longer. But at the end of six months, if he has not got a job he has to look further afield.
  One of the biggest assets which encourages a worker to change his attitude is the wife who is left at home, who gets fed up with the man being round the house all day. At the end of six months, particularly if she is working and their income suddenly drops, she will probably say, "Get a job. Stop saying you want it in your own skill. Just get a job." This is one of the greatest contributory factors to getting people to change from one occupation to another.
  Mr. David Lambie: Will the hon. Lady tell us what the unemployment rate was in her constituency in June, 1970?
  Miss Hall: I do not have that figure. I have only the present figures. The more figures one gets, the more complicated they become. I have the figures for the present situation in Keighley. That is what interests me now, not history.
  I should like to turn to the more serious deep-seated problem which has much longer-term serious consequences, namely, the unemployment of people over the age of 50. This matter was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). From the figures for Keighley it is difficult to estimate, but it is believed that half the unemployed people in Keighley who have been unemployed the longest are over 50. The Government's announcement about retraining will help. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East on this score. If the retirement age is 65, a maximum of 15 years' working can certainly give a very good return. After all, many people wish to continue working after they reach the age of 65. I certainly do not believe that because a man is over 50 he should not be retrained. I hope that the announcement tomorrow will help this class of person.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My point was that I suspected that industry will think such people are not worth retraining and that the State might take the same view.
  Miss Hall: I thank my hon. Friend. My next point is that often those over 50 are a great deal more reliable, more honest and loyal—[An HON. MEMBER: "More honest?"]—definitely—than some of the younger people who are more inclined to take than to give. Many employers tell me that they are better than some of the younger people.
  I am interested in the retirement age. I have had a letter from the Keighley Trades Council which asks for the retirement age to be reduced to 60 for men and to 55 for women. I disagree on one point. I think that it should be the same for both men and women. I do not think that there should be discrimination between the sexes on retirement age. I think that the time will soon come when it will be lowered from 65 to 60.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who is not in his place at the moment, mentioned the importance of industrial development certificates. We have far too much rigidity. We have special development, development, intermediate or full employment areas. Surprising as it may seem, Keighley is in the full employment class with an unemployment rate of 6·4 per cent.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will the hon. Lady tell us whether Keighley had full employment in 1970 when the present Government came to office?
  Miss Hall: As I said earlier, I am talking about January, 1972. Keighley now has this high unemployment rate and it is a so-called full employment area. We do not ask to have our status changed; we ask that those companies which are successful and want to expand should be allowed to do so. One particular company in my constituency, which has expanded over the last nine months and taken on 200 employees, is very successful and wishes to expand further, but it has been told that it must go to a town in a so-called development area, where it already has a branch, where the unemployment rate is much less than in Keighley and where the Department of Employment has admitted that the appropriate type of labour is not available. If we were not in the Chamber of the House of Commons I would be very rude. What I will say
  128
  is that when a successful firm is not allowed to expand when and where it wishes, we are in a barmy situation. I hope that we might have a more fluid situation regarding development areas and I.D.C.s.
  I should like to end with some comments about the machine tool industry because this plays a very important part in my constituency. The main problem is the stagnation of the home market. I should like to put forward a suggestion, which I hope the Minister will consider and answer. This has been put to me by many manufacturers. What is going on in the Royal Ordnance factories? Why is so little known? Why cannot we have more re-equipping? How many machines in the Royal Ordnance factories are British and how many are foreign? Is there not a potential here for modernisation which at the same time could help the depressed British machine tool industry? It seems to be a sphere rather of the unknown. Many manufacturers would like a bigger and better opportunity for putting British machinery into the Royal Ordnance factories.
  I should also mention the Common Market. At present the duty on numerically controlled lathes is 8 per cent., and on standard lathes the duty is 7 per cent. to all E.E.C. countries. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Northfield, my machine tool and engineering people look forward to the challenge, but they are worried about the unknown subject of V.A.T. They do not pay purchase tax on machine tools, and it is increasingly difficult for them to plan and budget ahead not knowing what the situation will be when V.A.T. is introduced. I appreciate that that is not something on which the Minister can pronounce tonight, but this uncertainty should be voiced because it makes it difficult to plan for the long term.
  There is uncertainty in engineering generally because of the collapse of the national pay and disputes procedure between the Engineering Employers' Association and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. The engineering unions have put in a pay claim for an increase of about £700 million. The employers say that that would add 40 per cent. to their costs and increase prices by up to 15 per cent., and negotiations have broken down. The

  129
  situation is serious for the engineering companies. I hope that the problem will be resolved because at the end of the day the people who suffer are all those who are involved in engineering—that is, in almost every constituency but particularly mine.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: It gives me a certain amount of pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) because my early career in local politics was in Keighley. Indeed, I had the pleasure of serving on that local council for about four and a half years. Because this is a short debate I must leave the pleasantries there.
  The hon. Lady says that she makes no apology for raising the problem of unemployment in Keighley. I can understand her chagrin, because Keighley had not known unemployment, even during the 'thirties, until about 18 months ago. It is since the hon. Lady's Government took charge in 1970 that there has been this escalation of unemployment in areas such as Keighley.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) spoke at length about the unemployment problem in Birmingham, and he makes no apology for doing so. The apology he ought to make is for having to speak at all today, because until 18 months ago unemployment in his area was almost unknown. There is no doubt that the Government have something to answer for.
  What is the background to this remarkable number of unemployed? It is not that the Government took on a £800 million deficit in the balance of payments. It was not that they took on something which had to be put right. They took over the largest balance of payments credit that any incoming Government have ever had, and by a remarkable amount of ingenuity they have managed to bring about unemployment to a level which means that my colleagues from the North-East, Scottish and Welsh areas, who used to vie with one another for the eye of the Chair in debates of this nature, are having to compete with hon. Members from Birmingham, Keighley and elsewhere. That is the truth of the matter, and we have to look in some depth at why that has happened.
  130
  The basis of the real hardship of unemployment is still tied up with regional policy. I believe that when, as we hope, the basic economy is given some lift, the problems to which hon. Members have referred will quickly be solved by a soak-up. That has generally been the case during the periods of boom and bust of the post-war era, but in the development areas the problem has remained. When the "Birminghams" and areas in the South-East started to catch cold, the regions caught pneumonia.
  During their period of office the Labour Government, in their wisdom, introduced a system of investment grants. The idea was to bring new industries to areas and to coax to those areas industries from Birmingham and the South-East. In my region alone about 120,000 mining jobs have disappeared, to say nothing of reductions in shipbuilding, engineering, and various ancillary trades.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) dealt with the shipbuilding industry. On Wear-side we are pretty proud of our shipbuilding complex. It has managed to keep its nose above water, due to good staff, good management, good relationships and so on. Apart from the SD14s providing continued employment, I do not think that the shipbuilding industry can look forward to a great deal of extra employment, so we have to look for something different.
  If we consider the problem in terms of development area policy, I think that we have to judge the matter on results. I think that the Minister would agree that that is fair. Let us consider what happened in the past and what is taking place now. One of the damning figures of the Government's policy came out last Friday showing the result of the Government's I.D.C. policy. Dealing with the Northern Region the Newcastle Journal said:
  "Area covered by I.D.C.s takes a tumble"
  and it went on to say that the areas dropped by 27 million sq. feet last year. It is the figure released by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that the Minister will accept it as correct.
  In my own region the percentage of I.D.C.s dropped steadily during the year, from 1·7 in the first quarter, to 1·5 in the second quarter, and down to 0·7 in the

  131
  third and last quarters. The figure for this year is 4·6 per cent., compared with 7·8 per cent. in 1970, 9·2 per cent. in 1969, and 11·4 per cent. in 1968. If those are not damning figures about the effect of the Government's policy on industrial development certificates, I do not know what are.
  The Minister may say that that is a trend, that there has been a general rundown. I cannot say that, because in October, 1970, the Government made a deliberate policy decision to change over from investment grants to investment allowances, and from that time the figures began to take a deep dive. From that moment onwards there was a big change in the thinking of industry about moving to the development areas.
  I have to charge the Government with the fact that by a policy decision they made this big difference to industry. I am not speaking purely as a politician. I am a member of the Executive Committee of the North-Eastern Development Council, which has done a study of these things. From time to time we brought outside industries to our meetings so that we could get their opinion. It was their view that the changeover was too drastic. There was no time lag. The Government did not say that the change would take effect from, say, a date 12 months hence. Instead, they announced that they were changing from grants to allowances immediately.
  Mr. Albert Booth: At a stroke.
  Mr. Bagier: As my hon. Friend says, "at a stroke". That group of three words is a saying which I am sure the Government will regret for the whole of their period of office, short as that may be.
  When we brought outside industry to our meetings we liked to think of what could be done in a practical way to help. Recently a meeting was held with representatives from industry in the North-East and from organisations such as Anglo Great Lakes Corporation Ltd., George Angus & Co. Ltd., Caterpillar Tractor Co. Ltd., Clarke Chapman John Thompson Ltd., Foster Wheeler John Brown Boilers Ltd., I.C.I. Ltd., Plessey Telecommunications Group Ltd., British
  132
  Railways, and some of the nationalised industries. We came to the conclusion that there were certain things that the Government could do. I will try to be constructive as well as critical.
  I appeal to the Minister to ask his Department to give the go-ahead immediately for the Sizewell B scheme, which could have a tremendous effect on employment in the North-East, and also for the Redcar steel complex scheme. The Government should also accelerate their capital expenditure in British Petroleum, in its exploration of the North Sea for oil and gas. This also would have its side effects on the steel industry.
  I would also ask the Government, in these huge orders, which take a long time to come to fruition, to stop doing things in stops and starts and to start thinking in terms of programmes five, 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, rolling programmes which could give people employment prospects and work in these very large industries which should not be subject to the whims of government.
  The Government should also consider how much thought, finance and direction they can put into the fight against environmental pollution, something from which the North-East and Scotland, which both did their share in providing the wealth of this nation, have suffered for a long time. It is not too much to ask for public money to put that right.
  We have argued at great length about the merits of investment grants as opposed to allowances. Why can we not have a little elasticity, and use both? Why not ask industry which it would prefer—
  Mr. Dan Jones: They made a decision.
  Mr. Bagier: Yes, but the Government made this decision without any consultation with industry. In the name of the unemployed, will the Government now reconsider?
  Mr. Jones: What I meant was that industry has been asked and the C.B.I. is in favour of grants, not allowances.
  Mr. Bagier: I could not agree more—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bagier: The Minister shakes his head, but in our consultations with local industry we have come to the conclusion that there is a case for grants in some cases and allowances in others. I am asking for less rigidity. The Government should think of the unemployed.
  Parts of our problem is a continuing shake-out. Every week we see news of fresh redundancies. I read in the Newcastle Journal that Vickers is to lay off some more, that 181 men will be laid off by an engineering firm following 215 sackings last month, and that another 80 men were made redundant at Stocks-field recently. This is a continuing factor to which the Government must face up.
  The regions do not lightly view the prospect of unemployment. The Minister should examine these detailed cases that I have mentioned, including the tremendous spending power of the Government, which can influence the regions, infrastructure and industrial orders. If they think more about people and less about the statistics, they may come up with some of the right answers.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) will, I know, excuse me if I do not follow his argument too deeply except to take up his point about our needing fewer statistics in our speeches. I want to make a brief speech and deal with one specific item which may help us in our attempts to find a long-term solution to the unemployment problem. This is not a constituency speech or even really a regional speech. I want, however, to take as an example one industry which can help—the tourist industry.
  Many speakers in today's debate and our debate last week have emphasised the need for changed attitudes and the need to realise that we should look more to the creation not just of new and more jobs but also of jobs in industries which have not figured largely up to now in the preoccupation of the Government.
  I was interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings
  134
  (Mr. Warren) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) about the need to look for the development of new industries, which clearly will need labour. One of the hardest things that we have to face is that, however many opportunities the Government may provide for retraining, far too many people will not turn their minds to pastures new. The Government, if they have a duty here at all, should fight for the hearts and minds of men and women to make them realise that profitable and worthwhile employment is available in this country, but not necessarily in the traditional industries, in areas such as the North-East, in which they have always sought employment in the past.
  I am not so simply referring to finding men to serve as waiters in hotels. Development of the tourist industry calls for major infrastructural works which can provide not only new but long-term and varied employment. Unemployment is a human problem. Men seek a good job, security and prospects for themselves and their families, and the tourist industry can provide these forms of security.
  It is also coincidental—or perhaps not—that many of the areas of highest unemployment have great unexploited tourist potential—Wales, Scotland, the North-East and the South-West. I have a request for the Minister which I have made to him more than once before. That is, that industrial development certificate policy should not be related purely to industry in what I consider to be the old-fashioned sense of the word. Will the Minister yet again consider the idea of creating tourist development areas where Government assistance can be related to the tourist development potential?
  I want to quote some figures which illustrate my point that there are jobs available in the hotel and catering industry in areas like the North-East but the tourist industry finds it difficult to attract people. Last week the Caterer and Hotel-keeper produced some information about two symposia which were held recently in Darlington and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The object of the symposia was to attract young men to the industry and to persuade them to train for long-term employment in it. In Darlington, which has 1,700 unemployed, three people turned

  135
  up for the symposium. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which has over 4,000 unemployed, only 11 people turned up for the symposium. As the Caterer and Hotel-keeper says, other equally depressing results have been obtained in other parts of the country.
  This leads me to ask how accurate the statistics about job availability are. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) has a Question down for Thursday, when he is
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 100,000 unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry have now been filled."
  If there are 100,000 vacancies in this industry, that fact illustrates my point better than any words of mine could.
  Mr. Bagier: The present job ratio in the North-East is 30 persons chasing every vacancy, whatever the notified vacancy situation is.
  Mr. Adley: Are we sure that the statistics of notified job vacancies are accurate?
  Mr. John Biffen: It is well known that in many employment areas prospective employers do not notify vacancies to the Department of Employment.
  Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming what I have said. One company quoted in the Caterer and Hotelkeeper—namely, Swallow Hotels—has 72 vacancies for youngsters in the North-East. The controller of the company, having noted how few young people attended the symposium, is quoted as saying this:
  "Either the youngsters do not want to work or, more likely, the proper information about the industry is not getting to them. If we only had a chance to talk to them I am sure we could interest them in a service industry career."
  We spend far too little time in government and in the House talking about the tourist industry. In the 18 months I have been in the House we have spent a great deal of time discussing the coal industry, the steel industry and the shipbuilding industry. We have never had a set debate on the tourist industry other than the occasional debate which has arisen as a result of an hon. Member being lucky in the Ballot.
  136
  Although unemployment is in many cases an attitude of mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I phrased that badly.
  Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. Gentleman did indeed.
  Mr. Adley: Although the cure for unemployment requires a change in the attitude of mind so that people can be persuaded to take jobs in new industries, the Government have a major duty to bring about just this change in attitude of mind. I, too, look forward to the statement to be made tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
  Despite the amount of time that some of us in the South-West spend talking about the aircraft industry and agriculture, the catering and hotel industry is, of the local industries, the major employer of labour in the South-West. I urge my right hon. Friends to do all they can to bring to the attention of everyone on the unemployed list the availability of so many unfilled vacancies in the hotel and catering industry.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Campbell: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) has brought to the attention of the House an industry which, I agree is often neglected, and which is of some importance in my constitutency also, but I ask him to forgive me if I concentrate more on the industrial side, as this is where our main problems lie today.
  The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and other hon. Members opposite have spoken in favour of investment allowances and of the continuation of the regional employment premium. This has been a constant cry from our side of the House for some time, but it has been ignored by the Government until now. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are having a change of mind on the matter.
  Another matter raised several times today is the allocation of industrial development certificates. This gives considerable worry to those of us who come from special development areas or development areas, for we now see the trend to push for industrial development certificates in areas where unemployment has not been high until a short time ago. The right hon. Member for Stafford

  137
  and Stone argued that, with British entry into the E.E.C., if firms in these areas do not have permission to develop there, they will move to the Continent to set up their factories. It is one of our great worries in Scotland that there will be this movement all the time nearer to the large market on the Continent of Europe.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on his announcement about the Hunterston project today. We have been waiting for it for a long time. About three years ago I was a member of the Lower Clyde Development Group, set up by the then Labour Government in cooperation with the local authorities. It produced the Metro-Weddle Report, financed equally by the local authorities and the Government. Several excellent reports were produced, only to lie on the table all that time. We had seminars at all the universities, and there was great excitement, but it has taken the Government three years to act.
  Only last year, Labour Members had a meeting with the Clyde Port Authority, which was appealing for action at that time and saying that, if the project were on the table in Holland, we would have gone ahead long ago and then looked for work. We did not need to wait until we had a particular propect to fit into it. If the deep water facilities were there, we should have attracted projects to it. I hope that this will now happen, once the scheme gets into full swing.
  As time is short, I shall concentrate on one other industrial problem; namely, the state of affairs in the Plessey company, again in the news now, though for a different reason. I refer to Plessey in Alexandria. The factory, the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, was taken over from the Government in January, 1971, and within six months the Plessey company announced that it would close.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I think that the hon. Gentleman gave the wrong date. He should have said 1970, should he not?
  Mr. Ian Campbell: No. There was a partial occupation, so to speak, with the two parties working side by side in 1970, and then, on 4th January, 1971, I was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), handed over the keys to Ples-
  138
  sey. Within six months, the company announced that the factory would be entirely closed.
  This was a factory given away on bargain-basement terms by the Labour Government. In some ways, hindsight shows that there should have been a guarantee sought from the firm that work would continue at the factory. But, as I say, closure was soon announced. In fact, it closed in October. There was then the sit-in by the workers, which has been going on for five months.
  The workers took that action to prevent removal of the machinery from the factory, and they were successful in that objective. Over the past month or so negotiations have been taking place between the workers and the new company set up by Plessey and Lyon industrial group, and we now have the happier outcome that the situation has been resolved. Plessey and Lyon together are to create a new industrial estate in the factory. A certain number of jobs has already been agreed, and an engineering firm is moving in. A joint committee has been set up, consisting of representatives of the new firm and the workers, to sponsor incoming industry that will use the machinery in the factory, which would have been removed but for the workers.
  Is that the lesson for the future? Should we all have sit-ins or take-overs? The situation in the Fisher-Bendix factory is very much in our minds. There the management's action has been stayed, and the situation is to be reviewed in a year. There have been references to the U.C.S. work-in today. I am sure that the Clydebank yard and perhaps the Scotstoun yard would have gone by now but for the work-in. In all these instances the workers have given management time to pause and consider. By the action of the workers a new dimension has been added to the industrial picture.
  Why should such action be necessary to make firms think? What about redundancies that go unchallenged? One of the answers to the problem was given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the debate on 24th January, when he suggested that:
  …where in. the future factory closures are announced or redundancies declared,…the Government should require prior notification to

  139
  the Department concerned …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1022.]
  He also said that a group representing all local interests should look into the problem and see what action can be taken to resolve it. That would give everyone a chance to consider such problems, including their social aspects. If that proposal were put into practice it would be a major step forward in the proper assessment of redundancies and closures.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) has told us something of the Plessey situation in his constituency which will be of great interest to the House. He has shared great worries with his constituents over the past few months. I know how difficult the Plessey situation has been, and I am sure that every hon. Member will join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the future for the factory is now really secure and brighter for those who work there, particularly in view of the factory's chequered history over recent years.
  I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the good news he gave us today about the Hunterston terminal. I hope that it may point to further development later but it is excellent news in itself. The hon. Gentleman made a very courteous and proper reference to what my right hon. Friend said but he was alone in doing so among Labour hon. Members. I was sorry to see that my right hon. Friend's statement did not even raise a smile from them, not a flicker, let alone a cheer. Perhaps the reason is that they prefer to travel hopefully rather than to arrive. But it is such a pity that as they come they trail such clouds of gloom, because the position in Scotland, although extremely serious, is not one of gloom.
  I shall give some reasons why I believe that, but first I want to say something about the Opposition's Motion. Few people will pay serious attention to it, certainly in Scotland. We remember the Opposition's so-called plan for expansion in Scotland, an example of the planned economy we were to expect. In their pre-election White Paper, grandly styled
  140
  "The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970", the Labour Government held out the prospect of 60,000 new jobs in Scotland. We did not get the 60,000; we lost 82,000. The Labour Government were off target by 142,000 jobs. When the Opposition now point to the intolerably high level of unemployment in Scotland, it would be better if they were to recall that had they fulfilled the promised prospect of 1966 there would have been 142,000 more people at work in Scotland in 1970.
  All that is bad enough, but the Labour Government went on to promote a surge of inflation which quickly brought unemployment in its wake. Most of our economic problems spring directly from the galloping inflation and mounting unemployment bequeathed to a sorry Britain by the Labour Government who ran away. Today's Motion by right hon. and hon. Members opposite is, in effect, a Motion of censure on themselves. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the inflation we suffered directly affected unemployment in the industries listed in the Motion because of the economic uncertainty it created. It affected employment also by producing a large shake-out of labour by industry.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) quoted correctly and quite fully from a leading article in The Times of last Saturday. I do not disagree with the point of his quotation. But the article touched on the point I have just made. It pointed out that by 1970
  "the large publicly owned industries had been 'shaking out' for years and the steel industry had started on the process."
  Private employers, it said began a great shake-out in mid-1970. I suggest that the reason for that great shake-out was the growing effect of soaring wage settlements at the time. I suggest further that the reason for that rate of wage inflation then and later was the Labour Government's total retreat from their own prices and incomes policy in the months before the 1970 General Election.
  Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the same leading article that I quoted. If he reads it fully he will find that the leader writer does not share his view of the bequest of inflation by the Labour Government. He says, indeed, that most of the wage increases were granted by private industry, and it is

  141
  difficult to see how it could have done so with a view to securing the re-election of the Labour Government.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am not misrepresenting the article. I am giving my suggested reason for the shake-out and why it happened. I repeat that it happened because of the intolerable escalation of wage settlements created by the Labour Government's total abandonment of their prices and incomes policy in the months immediately before the 1970 General Election, when the Labour Party was trying to curry electoral favour.
  Mr. James Hamilton: The Labour Government's prices and incomes policy was not supported by the then Opposition. I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself voted against it on many occasions.
  Mr. MacArthur: What I remember voting against very well was the succession of orders laid by the Labour Government when they found that they had acted illegally and were requiring the House to legalise their illegality. That I did not support and never would support.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East quoted from the leading article in The Times when he said that business confidence, in the sense of new investment and willingness to create new jobs, was unusually low at the moment. It certainly is, but the critical words are "at the moment". I believe that investment will turn upwards as the Government's measures work through the economy. They must turn upwards, and no doubt this need is at the centre of the mind of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as he approaches his Budget statement.
  The balance in all this is very delicate, because of the narrow margin between the economic conditions required for a short-term boom and those required for long-term sustained growth. I hope that there will not be too much talk of a boom, because that would bring renewed inflation in its train and would not gain the confidence for investment that we require. The spur to true confidence is surely the prospect of cautious but sustained long-term growth.
  The tax cuts of £1,400 million a year which have been introduced by the Government have started to revive the economy. The cuts in purchase tax and
  142
  S.E.T. were the first tax cuts directly affecting prices for nearly 10 years and consumer demand is rising as a result, as all the indicators show and as anyone with commercial experience knows perfectly well.
  A vast injection of cash by the other Government measures to stimulate the creation of jobs is also having an effect. I suggest, however, that the extra jobs which will be created by the injection of cash into the economy by Government measures—that is, acceleration of construction projects and the like—should be regarded as measures to tide over the situation until genuine economic growth takes place. I say this because the extra projects for which these extra funds were provided have to be substantially completed by March, 1973, and the jobs are therefore largely short term, although they are needed urgently and they will ease the position until genuine growth brings about a genuine fall in unemployment.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of state referred to the enormous growth in productivity. With some 400,000 fewer people at work, Britain is producing rather more than before. It is an upsurge in productivity which bodes well for future growth in Britain, but it has helped in itself to exacerbate the current unemployment position. We want higher productivity, but we also want the unemployment figures to fall.
  In the preoccupation of all of us with the proper use of the resources of the country we should always remember that the greatest and most precious natural resources we have is the people of the country, and we simply cannot afford to tolerate a situation in which many hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed when they should be—and, I trust, soon will be—producing profitably for the benefit of the nation.
  The fact that productivity has gone up as it has points to a problem that still remains. It is that there is a substantial margin of slack which still has to be taken up before manufacturing capacity is fully stretched. Putting aside seasonal influences, it is only at the point when manufacturing capacity is fully stretched or nearly so that we can expect the true level of unemployment to fall. Particularly in Scotland we look for growth in the United Kingdom economy because

  143
  it is only growth in the total economy that can produce growth in Scotland.
  Whatever the pattern of inducement may be, it cannot bite unless industry is mobile, and it will not be mobile without the certainty of true growth. We have to face the fact, unpalatable as it may be, that the nature of employment in Britain has been changing and will continue to change. No longer will it be possible for a man necessarily to follow in the skills of his grandfather and father. I look forward eagerly to the statement we are to hear tomorrow about retraining. I hope that we will also consider whether we do enough to help with the mobility of labour. Are the transfer and resettlement grants administered by the Department of Employment really effective? Are the criteria too restrictive? Are the travel and removal allowances adequate?
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East spoke about the challenge of competition from the Common Market. He might have said more about the challenge of opportunity. There will be great opportunity for Scotland because it will be seen not only as Scotland in the United Kingdom but as Scotland within Europe. I welcome the work that my hon. and right hon. Friends are doing to attract foreign capital and investment for Scotland. I believe that we can offer an environment for work which few areas in Europe can match.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to use the limited time I have to comment in a shorthand fashion upon five complex and difficult decisions.
  The first concerns the nuclear power industry and the results of the committee headed by Peter Vintner. This is a difficult matter, and it is no use pretending otherwise. It would be unacceptable to many of us if the leaks are true and the British nuclear power industry is to go American. It may well be that the steam generating heavy water reactor is the reactor of the future combined with a prototype fast breeder reactor. Not just for patriotic Scottish reasons, many of us would like to see whatever permutation is finally arrived at including a place for the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay in the 1980s.
  144
  What is absolutely essential is that we do not mess around with one-off projects but stick to some coherent plan, whatever plan may be reached. The trouble besetting the British nuclear industry has been chopping and changing and not settling on one plan. I hope that whatever comes out of Vintner a coherent plan is announced and that we stick to it, measuring it to whatever happens in Europe, because it is crazy to do this out of the context of Europe.
  The second decision which has a direct bearing on the debate arises out of the American offer of British participation in the space shuttle. I do not have time to go into the merits or demerits of this, only to say that the Government will have noted that in the memorandum we had from the S.B.A.C. it was pressed upon us that we should participate in the American project. It will not be news to the Secretary of State for Scotland to hear that this is not an eccentric or esoteric matter for Scottish industry. It is vitally important because the electronics industry of much of Scotland will not remain in the forefront of technology unless British participation is accepted.
  I am in no doubt that we shall have to do this with our European partners, and I hope that it will be made clear to M. Lefevre and his colleagues, acting as co-ordinators in the European response, that we are keen to participate at an early stage. If we do not participate, let us be under no illusion that Japan will and British industry will lag behind in many important respect. I therefore hope that the Minister will give an immediate reaction on what the Government are doing, and if he can add to the answer given early in January by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) I shall be grateful.
  The third issue has already been mentioned in the debate; namely, the V/STOL and STOL project. V/STOL will probably present problems for years to come. Therefore, I wish to conduct the argument in terms of STOL. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has come into the Chamber because he takes a personal interest in this matter. We are under no illusion that this matter must be dealt with on a multinational basis, with each country agreeing to certain landing specifications. It is important, and not only for the aircraft

  145
  industry, that decisions on the future of STOL should be announced fairly soon. For Scottish Members, such a system would have enormous personal benefit.
  Fourthly, I wish to raise the question of environmental action and to put a direct question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He will know from the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill of 16th December and from a debate answered—and I make no complaint about this—by the Leader of the House and subsequently by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that a detailed plan for urban conservation has been put forward on behalf of the Scottish Civic Trust and the Scottish National Trust. I do not claim that it is a panacea but it has two major advantages. The first is that it can bring employment quickly because it is a labour-intensive scheme. The second is that it would employ many people in kindred trades where there is an easy transfer of skill, even from ship repairing. That is the claim of the Scottish Civic Trust, and it seems to me fairly realistic. I hope that the Secretary of State, after all the favourable noises made by the Under-Secretary of State in the House on previous occasions, will be able to put forward some kind of realistic plan in the next few weeks.
  Fifthly, the nub issue, referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall), concerns the Bolton Committee's report on small firms. This is very important in the context of employment in the engineering industry. I confine myself to asking the Government to give time for a debate on it and, even better, to take fairly speedy action on its less controversial suggestions.
  Finally—because my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) has a great deal to say—I should like to make one other comment—
  Mr. John Rankin: who is called is a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Dalyell: Many hon. Members will have experienced over the weekend the shock of what is happening in the coalfield. Many hon. Members are better qualified to talk about this matter than I am, but are we sure that it is right to deny benefit to single men in the mining industry? Let us recollect—
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. I am sorry to intervene, but—
  Mr. Dalyell: I have been waiting all day to speak.
  Mr. Rankin: So have I—or most of the day. I have just heard nominated as the next speaker an hon. Member who came into the Chamber long after I did. Is that in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Government are keeping under review the situation of single men in the coal industry. It will be within their recollection that there was enormous bitterness during the Pilkington strike precisely on this point. I warn them gently that unless some kind of favourable conclusion comes from their continuing review of the situation of single men in the coal industry there will be real trouble. I hope that that trouble can be avoided.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dan Jones.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker I ask you whether it is in order for an hon. Member of this House to nominate the subsequent speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no nomination of the next speaker by any Member of this House. The hon. Member knows the time is late. He should not occupy the time of the House with a frivolous point of order.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, further to that point of order, it is a point of order which deals with the procedures of this House, and, although I do not want to protract any debate which diverts from the main debate, I am prepared to do it in the defence of the minority interests in this House. I follow the point taken by my hon. Friend previously, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: is it in order for an hon. Member to nominate the subsequent speaker? It is within the recollection of the House that a statement was made nominating the subsequent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already stated that no hon. Member in my hearing has nominated a subsequent speaker. The hon. Member is now using precious moments of the time of the House to say something which sounds rather like a frivolous point of order.
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. HANSARD will prove whether I am correct or not. My hon. Friend the Member for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is for the third time referring to something which I have ruled is not a point of order, and to something which an hon. Member did not say.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you can rule on a point of order only in accordance with the procedures of this House, and Mr. Deputy Speaker cannot determine that an issue is a point of order or not a point of order except in relation to the procedures of this House. I make this submission to you, that it is the prerogative of the Chair to say who the next speaker or any speaker in this Chamber is to be. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the subsequent speaker. HANSARD tomorrow will prove this. What I am asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the light of his calling on my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones), is how it is possible for one hon. Member to nominate the subsequent speaker. Now you can deal with my point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Mr. Dan Jones.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Dan Jones: I intend to speak for no more than five minutes. I shall try to keep to that time. I have taken a certain amount of exception to the fact that the debate has been dominated by Scottish affairs. With all due respect to that part of the country—and I certainly pay all due respect to it and to its entitlement—there are other areas in the country which are suffering very much from this vicious anti-social complaint, that is, unemployment.
  I am going to refer, very briefly, to the intermediate areas, in particular to Burnley and north-east Lancashire. The area has suffered catastrophically in this century from the decline in the textile and coal industries. Today's debate is germane to the problems of those industries, inasmuch as their economic and industrial solvency depends substantially on engineering. There was much more that I wanted to say about this, but the clock is against me.
  148
  The House should understand that since the war gas turbines for aero-engines have been produced in Burnley. We have in addition some of the finest dough-making machines. Aero accessories and automobile accessories are made in Burnley. Burnley is now predominantly an engineering town. That is why I took exception to the Secretary of State for Scotland who, in opening the debate, concentrated so much on Scotland and did not refer to this area. I hope that the Minister for Industry will give some time and attention to it.
  I impress upon the Minister the importance of the Mark II version of the RB211. There is much that I should like to say on that point, but time is not with me. I hope that when the Mark II comes up for Cabinet consideration sympathetic attention will be given to it.
  I hope, too, that the suggestion about the machine tool industry made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) will receive consideration. If the Government have the confidence in the future that they have expressed—and I want to believe them—they can show their confidence by earmarking parts of the machine tool industry for public ownership and placing them in the development and intermediate areas.
  Will the Government seriously consider the reintroduction of investment grants rather than investment allowances? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I am glad to see here, knows very well that the C.B.I. long ago came down in favour of grants rather than allowances. It is not for me to tell him what is the thinking of the C.B.I. He has been a member of that august body for many years and he knows perfectly well that these chaps know what they are talking about in terms of industrial expansion. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reintroduce investment grants rather than allowances. I apologise to the House for having to speak at such a rate but I have the time factor in mind.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) for cutting short his remarks. The Opposition make no apology for returning today to the theme of unemployment. As

  149
  my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in opening the debate, we intend to pursue this question until we get satisfactory answers and satisfactory action from the Government.
  There was a misunderstanding on the Government side at the outset that there was to be a Scottish emphasis in the debate. That was not our intention. Although I shall start my speech by referring to Scotland, the debate today was intended to be, and on our side has been, a debate taking in the problems of the industries mentioned in the Motion over the whole country. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the misunderstanding enabled the Secretary of State for Scotland to make his statement about the ore terminal at Hunterston which we on this side of the House very much welcome.
  There has been confusion about the ore terminal. Sometimes it has seemed to be a definite project and at other times there has been uncertainty, not least because of uncertainty in the Government's handling of the steel industry as a whole. We are happy to have the announcement of the British Steel Corporation today. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said, this is only a start and we are interested in much more major developments at Hunterston than even the ore terminal.
  The industries with which we are dealing today are in a sense basic to our industrial prosperity, not only in terms of the employment they provide—something like four and a half million—but also because they take up a large part of the capital investment of this country. Therefore, their prosperity is important, not just for those industries but for the strength of the economy as a whole.
  It has been remarkable that we have had a series of speeches from both sides of the House which have been both critical and constructive. They have had as their general theme the desperate need for the Government to take immediate action on our engineering and capital-intensive industries.
  The facts about unemployment are well enough known. Unemployment in the industries with which we are dealing today has gone up from about 95,500 in
  150
  June, 1970, to 204,000 in December, 1971. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said in opening the debate, the number of vacancies has also gone steadily down. Even in the most favoured parts of the country there are now several men chasing every job: and in areas like Scotland there is a very large gap between the unemployment and vacancy figures. This is bad enough, but there are a number of other factors in the situation which make it even more critical.
  If we take the question of engineering orders, there was a time a month or two ago when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side in general were seeing a chink of light in respect of an improvement in engineering orders. That proved to be no more than a chink of light because the latest figures published in the Trade and Industry Journal on Friday last week show that in the period of three months from September to November, 1971—the latest period for which figures are available—compared with the previous three months there was not an improvement, but a further deterioration in the situation. In regard to new orders, home orders were up in that period by about 1 per cent.; export orders were down by 14 per cent.; total orders were down by 3 per cent. Deliveries in the three-months period show a deterioration of 2 per cent. over the previous three months, and the total order book for the industry at the end of November was 1 per cent. down as compared with what it was at the end of August.
  Then there is the background to the problem in this country. I admit it does not date simply from June, 1970, but has a very much longer history. This relates to the problem of a lower rate of investment to gross national product in this country as compared with many countries whose industries are our competitors overseas. The Prime Minister gave the figures in a speech last week in the unemployment debate. Japan has an investment rate as a percentage of gross national product of 35 per cent.; in the countries of the Six the rate is 23 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom the rate is only 18 per cent.

  151
  This makes all the more tragic the present state of the engineering industry. As for the number of new jobs, some figures were given in a Written Answer last Friday by the Department of Trade and Industry. It can be seen that the number of new jobs involved in industrial development certificates given in 1971 was one-third down compared with the 1970 figures. These were the figure not simply for development areas, but for the whole of the United Kingdom—and they are very serious figures.
  If we look at the prospects for the future and not just at the present situation, we see that the picture is extremely dismal. The C.B.I. Financial Trend Survey of September, 1971, showed that the capital investment expectations of industry were such that only 24 per cent. of the people who replied to the survey expected to spend more on plant and machinery over the next 12 months than they had spent over the previous 12 months. In regard to buildings the percentage of people who expected to spend more was only 16 per cent. compared with the previous period. The Financial Times survey in December produced equally dismal figures.
  There is no sign yet of a real upturn in capital investment—and hon. Members opposite have made this point as firmly as we have—or of any upturn at all in the economy. This is despite the fact that it is the Government's intention to enter the Common Market on 1st January, 1973. For obvious reasons I shall not go into the merits of that tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, it may be that some industrialists in this country are holding back investment because they hope to invest on the Continent of Europe. That would be an extremely dismal prospect. But even if it is not as bad as that, if we take the most favourable interpretation of this it still means that British industry has not yet got the message that the Government are trying to put over that it should be investment more to take advantage of the opportunity which the Government say will be available when we enter the Common Market.
  We on this side, of course, are opposed to entry. Whatever we think about it,
  152
  it still remains true that if we enter Europe in a situation in which industry has not prepared itself and has not invested to take advantage of the opportunities, the economic effects of entry for this country are bound to be extremely disadvantageous in the short term as well as in the longer term.
  In the Secretary of State's speech today, we had trotted out again what is now a very tired excuse about the inheritance of the present Government in June, 1970. It was remarkable and significant that, with the inevitable exception of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), not one hon. Member on the Government side gave that as an excuse for the Government's record in the past 18 months. They all accepted the seriousness of the position, and no one tried to excuse the situation for the Government by pretending that it was one that the Government had inherited in June, 1970. I hope very much that the Minister for Industry will turn his mind exclusively to the situation that we have now and to the problems that we have. I hope, too, that he will answer the points put to him from both sides of the House.
  I want to set out a number of general considerations which the Government should have in mind and to illustrate them by reference to specific industries. The first affects the Government's attitude towards industry, especially those branches of industry on which our real prosperity depends. It is absurd for the Government to have even the lingering feeling that they should disengage themselves from private industry. There is an interesting example of how absurd this is in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology about the computer industry. I hope that at some stage the House will have an opportunity to debate that Report at length. That all-party Committee makes the simple point which I hope that the Government accept not just for the computer industry but for industry generally that, if we want to see industry prosper, it requires more and not less Government assistance, more and not less Government intervention and more and not less planning. That is a lesson which the Government give no sign of having learned, not just about the computer industry but about their relations with industry as a whole.

  153
  My second general point is that it is very important that we should protect the industry that we have in this country already. This point was made effectively by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). It does not make sense not to protect and enhance the industry that we have already. Again, the computer industry is a good example. I noticed in The Times the other day a report that the Government "think-tank" apparently is studying whether we need a computer industry in this country at all. I hope that that report is inaccurate. It seems criminal that any Government should even consider a proposition of that kind. Considering the amount of money already spent on the computer industry and considering that we are one of the few nations outside the United States which have a viable computer industry, we ought to be giving it every support and encouragement and not thinking whether we need to maintain the industry at all.
  We had another example in the aircraft industry with the RB211. Again, I hope that we shall have a separate opportunity of debating the White Paper which was published about ten days ago. There is no indication in the White Paper of what we know to be the fact, that the Government had decided to write off the RB211 completely. That was the situation which we had last February. All of us will remember the appalling speech by the Minister of Aviation Supply on 8th February, 1971, in which he said that it was the Government's intention to write off the RB211 completely.
  The Government were saved from themselves in a sense by pressure in this House and elsewhere. Yet, at the end of the day, the contract was saved by only one vote in the United States Senate. The whole incident damaged British industrial prestige considerably. Now that we have seen the White Paper it is extremely doubtful, to put it no higher, whether the Government have saved any money. If they had gone in and handled the situation in a different way, the project could have been saved without the expenditure of Government money greater than they are committed to by the White Paper.
  The RB211 incident is a good example of the Government's original doctrinaire intention of contracting out altogether,
  154
  but being forced to change their mind by pressure both here and elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, the same kind of thing has not happened to the same extent—I mean the Government being forced to change their mind—in the shipbuilding industry. In this respect I agree absolutely with everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). This was another instance where the Government decided to disengage. We had a long period of uncertainty after the General Election. We had the dismantling of the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the general impression by the Government, which persists to this day, that they were not interested in seizing the opportunities for the British shipbuilding industry which are available in world demand at the present time.
  Other nations with shipbuilding industries have not taken this attitude, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. They have supported their industries and subsidised them, whether in the Common Market, France and Italy, or Japan, where 100 per cent. of Japanese orders go to Japanese shipyards compared with only about a third or a quarter in the United Kingdom. In all these other countries they have the message that if they want to remain in the league of industrial leaders they have to support the industries which they already have.
  We had the abolition of investment grants for shipping at the same time as investment grants were abolished elsewhere—contrary, incidentally, to the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee that if investment grants were abolished equal incentives ought to be given to the shipping industry.
  I was amazed that the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon quoted the order book of the shipbuilding industry at the end of December, 1971, without pointing out that in terms of compensated tons, which is the real comparison to make, the orders by British shipowners in 1971 were only a third of what they were in 1970. British shipowners attribute this tremendous falling-off of orders to the abolition of investment grants for shipping. This will have an ultimate effect on the balance of payments. It has an effect at the moment on our shipbuilding

  155
  industry. It is desperate for the shipbuilding industry that we do something about financial incentives to shipping so that we can get the increased orders which we will need if the industry is not to fade away in two or three years.
  Turning to U.C.S., we are very glad to see the initiative that was taken by the trade unions in their recent visit to the United States of America. The Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon mentioned the interests of the Marathon Company in the Clydebank Yard, and it is this yard which is the key to the solution of the U.C.S. problem. I thought that it was ungracious of the Secretary of State to refer to that without saying that the Marathon initiative springs directly from the visit of Mr. McGarvey and his colleagues to the United States. It is not something that happened by Government initiative.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I in no way detract from what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I was pointing out that there were a number of other interests involved. When Mr. McGarvey went to the United States it was to make contact with the people who had previously been concerned, but who apparently dropped out. A number of interests have been involved. The Government have been trying to attract as many firms as possible which might be interested in taking over this yard.
  Mr. Millan: That is not the impression that we have had on this side of the House, nor is it the impression on Clyde-side. The fact remains that the Marathon interest, which is the most hopeful thing that has happened with Clydebank, came from a trade union initiative, and I thought that it was very bad that the Secretary of State could not bring himself even to mention that.
  As regards the general employment situation, the fact that there are still 7,000 men employed in U.C.S. and that redundancies have been kept down to 1,000 is no thanks to the Government. If the original Government proposals had gone through, by this time most of the workers there would have lost their jobs. They are in work because of the determined action of the workers and the trade unions concerned—
  Mr. Campbell rose—
  Mr. Millan: I shall not give way. That determined action has been supported—
  Mr. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Millan: No. The right hon. Gentleman took a rather long time to say very little.
  I hope that we shall not get from the Minister tonight what we had from the Prime Minister last week—merely an exhortation. The Prime Minister appealed to private industry to invest more because, he said, the situation was going to improve. He had nothing new to offer it. He had no new proposals to make. He was merely making an appeal to private industry to invest more.
  That was bad enough, but when the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wound up the debate on the machine tool industry on 22nd December he admitted that the situation in the industry was critical and that the Government had nothing to offer it. He concluded by saying:
  "I conclude by hoping that the machine tool industry will have a happier year than it has had in 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1971; Vol. 828, c. 1525.]
  That was very charming, but as the industry had had the worst year in its history it could not have a worse year in 1972. They were merely words.
  There has been nothing constructive to help the machine tool industry. What that industry and others with which we are concerned want from the Government is not exhortation, not just an appreciation of their problems, but real action to help them to get over those problems.
  A number of things are necessary if we are to create confidence in industry and elsewhere and if we are to give industry the stimulus which hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed on the Government today as being urgently required. First, there is a need for the establishment of the I.R.C., either as it was before, or another version of it, to do the job of restructuring industry, a job which industry is not able successfully to do itself.
  The second thing which is necessary—and this again has been supported by both sides of the House—is a return to the investment grant system. There is no doubt that the change from investment

  157
  grants to tax allowances has had a disastrous effect, particularly in the development areas. That is know in the industry and in the House. The Government will not admit that the change was an error of substantial proportions which has very considerably affected industrial confidence. There is a desperate need for the Government now to reverse that decision.
  There is also a need to do something in the machine tool industry. A number of proposals have been made today—retooling the Royal Ordnance factories, orders by nationalised industries and so on. There is the question of the Swedish system of capital expenditure tax certificates, which should also be considered.
  Obviously, there is a variety of ways. Another way would be free depreciation for industry generally in buying machine tools for a limited period. Provided that it was combined with the restoration of investment grants, one could maintain the differential between the development and the non-development areas. But however the Government do this, there is a serious problem here. Unless something is done about the machine tool industry quickly, the boom, if it comes—we all hope that it will—will come so late and the industry will be so run down that the additional machine tools which will then be required for capital equipment will come not from the British industry but from abroad. That is the great danger which hon. Members opposite as well as on this side have pointed out today.
  I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude towards advance factories. Many advance factories are unoccupied but if the Government are really convinced that better times are coming, that capital investment will improve and that industry will soon want to expand, one of the best ways in which they could express their confidence is by starting now a further programme of advance factories, so that when capital investment begins to pick up again, or we begin to have mobile industry looking for expansion opportunities, these factories will be available in the development areas. The Government should now say that they made a mistake over the regional employment premium and that it will continue beyond 1974. This would give the development areas a tremendous stimulus.
  158
  None of these suggestions is particularly original. The tragic aspect of the present situation is that these suggestions have been made continually from this side of the House, by outside commentators and even by hon. Members on the Government side for a considerable time. But there has been no real sign yet that the Government are willing to adopt any of these suggestions. We shall keep coming back to this problem until the Government produce satisfactory solutions.
  We do that because we appreciate that we face here not just an economic problem but also a human problem of absolutely appalling proportions. All of us, representing the interests of our constituents, have a right to bring that problem to the attention of the Government, to persist in our criticism of them and to persist in bringing this matter to the attention of the House until eventually we get a satisfactory response from the Government. I therefore hope that the House will support the Motion.
  9.39 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): At the beginning of his speech when he wound up for the Opposition in a similar debate last week the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) fairly recognised that we are attempting to grapple with immensely difficult problems in the nature of the present high level of unemployment. He said:
  "…it would be foolish for any of us to suppose that they can be solved at the wave of a wand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1091.]
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said then because it seemed that some hon. Members today, particularly the right hon. Gentleman himself, were trying to make out that there was some obvious tailor-made solution which would put everything to rights. I do not doubt hon. Members' sincerity in that. All of us must surely wish that there could be some quick answer to the deep-seated process which has brought insecurity, indignity and unhappiness to so many homes. If caring could do it we would have found the cure many months ago.
  But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not as easy as that. It is an immensely complex matter, and this fact

  159
  was well illustrated in the wide range of subjects touched on in this debate, which was intended, I believe, to be slightly more concise than last week's debate. The industries mentioned during the course of the debate have ranged from the aircraft industry, the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry, and heavy engineering, to the newer technologies which were especially mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The regions represented during the course of the debate have stretched from Scotland to the North-East and the West Midlands, and even the problems of Walthamstow have been mentioned.
  The nature and scale of the present unemployment is widely recognised as being a most serious and complex problem. To put it right we need, first, to know and to understand what has been happening, not just in the past few months, but at least over a number of years; and we need to know why it has been happening. To find the causes of the present high level of unemployment we need to go back to the policies of the previous Government. As we do so, it will be seen how in three areas in particular they directly contributed to the recent widespread loss of jobs and closing of plant.
  I do not accuse members of the previous Government of wanting unemployment or of trying to create it, any more than they would surely do so of us; but I do accuse them of failing to recognise in terms of job security the consequences of their own policy, the full miserable harvest of which we have been reaping in the past few months. They apparently need to be reminded of one or two facts, particularly now when they are calling for a greater stimulus to be given to expansion than that which has already been given.
  First, it was the Labour Government which quite deliberately followed a policy of slow growth, a policy in which they were distressingly successful, achieving a growth rate of less than 15 per cent. overall in six years with a low point of less than 2 per cent. a year in the last two years.
  Now by comparison there is a real prospect of an annual rate of increase in domestic demand of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. sustained over a number of
  160
  years ahead. Provided that the price competitiveness in international markets is maintained, there is no reason why this rate of growth should not be achieved.
  Second, the Labour Government deliberately set out to squeeze company profits, to tax individual earnings, and to load an additional burden against employment in the service trades at the very moment when they should have been doing precisely the reverse. By comparison we have already reduced taxation by £1,400 million in a full year and we have halved the selective employment tax. I heartily agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) about the damage that that particular brand of taxation did.
  Third, the previous Government also, towards the end of their time, deliberately, almost cynically, unleashed the full force of indiscriminate wage inflation. The equation of deflation, excessive taxation and uncontrolled wage inflation has inevitably led to job loss and shut-down. We are paying today a heavy price for the policies of yesterday's men. The policy of slow growth had consequences for demand directly affecting the level of investment in the years that followed. This has been clearly seen in, for example, the industry referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), the electricity supply industry. The reduced forecasts of demand attributable to the previous Government's policies of slow growth have meant fewer orders for manufacturers of switch-gear and turbo-generators. The cutback has had a most damaging effect on the heavy electrical, boiler making and heavy fabricating industries, and this has had a direct impact on employment in those industries. A sharply reduced order book from the domestic electricity supply industry has meant fewer jobs in the manufacturing companies as the backlog has worked through.
  To counter this effect, the present Government took direct action by bringing forward the start of a new power station, advancing by many months the placing of orders for its construction, its plant and its equipment. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) asked about Sizewell B. As he knows, the choice of a power station is primarily a matter

  161
  for the Central Electricity Generating Board, but I should tell him that Ince B was chosen in this case to enable an earlier impact to be felt on the employment figures than would otherwise have been the case, since Ince B is a repeat order. While on the subject of power stations, perhaps I may tell the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that I hope to be able to answer some of the points which he raised when I move the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill tomorrow.
  There is no doubt that the fall back in employment opportunities in certain sectors of heavy industry has had a serious impact in the regions. In this context we heard again the voice of the Midlands through the mouth of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone. In the Birmingham area, about one in 10 applications for industrial development certificates have not been granted. It is an extremely difficult balance of judgment to weigh the needs of areas such as those which have been represented in today's debate against those of the older industrial conurbations which are desperately in need of any mobile industry which can go there and bring new employment opportunities.
  I well understand why the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) was worried at some of the comments made on this score. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) that there is considerable scope in all this for the tourist industry and the prospects which it can open up in terms of new employment. The service industries generally can offer tremendous new outlets for employment in the regions, and this prospect will be increasingly seen as our economy expands in the years ahead.
  Many of the areas where our older industries are concentrated know from their past experience that slow growth leads to higher unemployment. That has invariably been so, but this time there was the additional factor of wage inflation which has made the position much worse. The previous Government deliberately stoked up the fires of wage inflation. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), in her notorious "The power is on the shop
  162
  floor" speech, was guilty of incitement of the most irresponsible kind. Having failed in her own attempt at containment, she went right over to the other extreme and actively identified herself with the exaggerated claims for higher wages, as have most members of her party since then.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
  Sir J. Eden: Now it appears that they are prepared to go to almost any length, openly backing industrial action in order to push harder on a front where they know an advance can only cause damage, an advance which for a time when they were in office and had some sense of responsibility they were so determined to do their best to check.
  The consequences of the previous Government's policy on wage inflation are still with us. We see them most clearly in what has happened to the shipbuilding industry, where the hoped for benefits in fixed-price contracts have been swamped in rising costs. To counter this, and the falling order book in the industry, we have brought forward about £80 million-worth of new naval shipbuilding orders. The home credit scheme, which started at £200 million, now stands at £700 million and will shortly be raised to £1,000 million. The industry has been given all the assistance promised under the Geddes programme, and more. In spite of what has been said by Labour Members, the present Government postponed the dissolution of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, the terminal date of which was written into the previous Government's Act.
  Both Opposition Front Bench speakers have referred to the position of U.C.S. But the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) must have known perfectly well that we made it clear in August that the main burden of redundancies would not take place before the end of the year. He also knows that many attempts have been made to find suitable interested parties to put in a bid for the Clydebank yard. I readily pay tribute to the work of Danny McGarvey, who I am sure will acknowledge the way in which we have co-operated. The firm of Breaksea Tank Ships asked us not to come forward with any assistance which the Department might be in a position to give, because it was not quite

  163
  ready for it. But Marathon Manufacturing Company certainly is interested. I had an interesting discussion with it last Friday. The amount of Local Employment Act assistance that might be available for it is certainly not the decisive factor, and hon. Members delude themselves if they think it is. The firm made clear to me that what matters most to it is to be able to maintain its delivery schedules, which are extremely tight with the sort of product it intends to manufacture. Therefore, the most important thing for it is the agreement on working practices, without which it probably would not be prepared to proceed.
  Faced with mounting costs, many companies have inevitably found themselves with virtually no room for manœuvre. There was a limit to the extent to which they could pass on in higher prices the extra costs incurred. That way played straight into the hands of our competitors. In most cases it was a self-defeating exercise, leading to renewed claims for higher wages. In any case, there was a limit to the amount of extra wages they could finance. The previous Government's deliberate policy of squeezing company profits was taking its toll. That has had serious consequences for companies' cash flow, leading directly to low investment performance, and has hit particularly hard the capital goods industries. The machine tool industry is no exception. That industry has been mentioned by the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) and others.
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Sir John Eden: The machine tool industry has been very hard hit, It is always last to be affected by any downturn in the economy and, regrettably, seems also to be the last to be affected by any upturn. But one thing is quite clear, that the competitiveness of the industry is very sound, the quality of the product is very good, and the figures show—
  Mr. Douglas rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Sir J. Eden: I have much more of the debate still to answer.
  164
  The figures clearly show the extent to which the machine tool industry has been able to beat competition in markets overseas. Obviously this—
  Mr. Benn rose—
  Sir J. Eden: Very well, if the right hon. Gentleman will be quick.
  Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before he sits down, can he tell us the date when he estimates that unemployment will be reduced to the level which the Government inherited from their predecessors?
  Sir J. Eden: I was talking about the machine tool industry.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Very well. If it is the intention of hon. Members opposite to stop me from finishing my speech, let them by all means shout; let them by all means make ridiculous exhibitions of themselves tonight, as they did the other night. There are many points in the debate which I am trying to answer and I shall continue to try to do so.
  Obviously, in the machine tool industry and the rest of British manufacturing industry this is the ideal time for the older plant to be replaced, and certainly there is every indication that expansion is well on the way. One of the key areas in this is the motor car industry. The new car registrations are at a record this year. Last year was also a record for them. This indicates record sales. Hon. Members opposite who are so keen to jeer at these things may well ask themselves how it is that the previous record year for new car registrations and car sales was 1964. What, one may ask, was happening between 1964 and 1971? They were the years of the locust eating into the vitality of our industry. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that investment has been taking place in European countries because demand for motor cars has been greater there, and it is to stimulate the demand for cars over here that we have deliberately geared our new policy to stimulating growth in the consumer industries.
  Mr. Ron Lewis rose—
  Sir J. Eden: All the measures that we have been taking are designed to increase general consumer spending power in the knowledge that the goods that are bought

  165
  will benefit the engineering industry generally and will be reflected in bigger orders for the component industries.
  Our aim is clear. It is to get growth under way to absorb the unemployment and to provide new job opportunities for those at present out of work. We will do this in a way which will avoid overloading, and it will be spread forward over a three-year period. The foundations for growth are there and opportunities are better for investment than they have ever been. Our industry is increas-
  ingly competitive. It is making better use of its resources. New initiatives in training are about to be announced. We are shortly to have access, on equal terms with our competitors, to the expanding European market. Thanks to the measures that the Government have already taken, demand is being re-invigorated and confidence is returning.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 276.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James

  Heseltine, Michael

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dean, Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Astor, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hiley, Joseph

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dixon, Piers

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dodds-Park, Douglas

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Holland, Philip

  Balniel, Lord

  Drayson, G. B.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hordern, Peter

  Batsford, Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hornby, Richard

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Eden, Sir John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Bell, Ronald

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Benyon, W.

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Farr, John

  Hunt, John

  Biffen, John

  Fell, Anthony

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Blaker, Peter

  Fidler, Michael

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  James, David

  Body, Richard

  Fletcher Cooke, Charles

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Bowden, Andrew

  Foster, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fowler, Norman

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Jopling, Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Brewis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gardner, Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bryan, Paul

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Buck, Antony

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kirk, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kitson, Timothy

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gorst, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)

  Gower, Raymond

  Knox, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Lambton, Lord

  Channon, Paul

  Gray, Hamish

  Lane, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Green, Alan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grylls, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Clegg, Walter

  Gurden, Harold

  Loveridge, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Luce, R. N.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cordle, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McLaren, Martin

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Costain, A. P.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hastings, Stephen

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Crouch, David

  Havers, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maddan, Martin

  Curran, Charles

  Hay, John

  Madel, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Mather, Carol

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

  Maude, Angus

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Ramsden, R. Hn. James

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmond, Robert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tilney, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trew, Peter

  Molyneaux, James

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Money, Ernie

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Monro, Hector

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  More, Jasper

  Rost, Peter

  Waddington, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Royle, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Morrison, Charles

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Mudd, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Murton, Oscar

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Wall, Patrick

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Neave, Airey

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Sharples, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Nott, John

  Simeons, Charles

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Osborn, John

  Soref, Harold

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Speed, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Worsley, Marcus

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stainton, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Peel, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Younger, Hn. George

  Percival, Ian

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Ellis, Tom

  Albu, Austen

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  English, Michael

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Evans, Fred

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Coleman, Donald

  Ewing, Henry

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Ashley, Jack

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnes, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Foot, Michael

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Ford, Ben

  Baxter, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Forrester, John

  Beaney, Alan

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Deakins, Eric

  Golding, John

  Booth, Albert

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamling, William

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

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harper, Joseph

  Cant, R. B.

  Eadie, Alex

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  168

  169

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marquand, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen)

  Millan, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Small, William

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Milne, Edward

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Janner, Greville

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Steel, David

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Strang, Gavin

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Judd, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orme, Stanley

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Kelley, Richard

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tinn, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lambie, David

  Padley, Walter

  Torney, Tom

  Latham, Arthur

  Paget, R. T.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lawson, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pardoe, John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Leonard, Dick

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wallace, George

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Watkins, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lipton, Marcus

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Prescott, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  McBride, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  McCann, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn, Harold (Huyton)

  Mackie, John

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mackintosh, John p.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  McManus, Frank

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Roper, John

  Mr. J amps A. Dunn and

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Sandelson, Neville

  Main question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 276.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Biffen, John

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

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Buck, Antony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Blaker, Peter

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Body, Richard

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Astor, John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bowden, Andrew

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Balniel, Lord

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bray, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Brewis, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Benyon, W.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Coombs, Derek

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cordle, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hunt, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Peel, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Percival, Ian

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Crouch, David

  James, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Curran, Charles

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dean, Paul

  Jopling, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Raison, Timothy

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dixon, Piers

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Redmond, Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Sir John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Farr, John

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lambton, Lord

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lane, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fidler, Michael

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rost, Peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Royle, Anthony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fortescue, Tim

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Foster, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fowler, Norman

  Luce, R. N.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fox, Marcus

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sharples, Richard

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Simeons, Charles

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McLaren, Martin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gardner, Edward

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Soref, Harold

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Spence, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maddan, Martin

  Sproat, Iain

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, David

  Stainton, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mather, Carol

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Stokes, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Sutcliffe, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mever, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, James

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernie

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tilney, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monro, Hector

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Havers, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trew, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  More, Jasper

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hay, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Charles

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mudd, David

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Heseltine, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hicks, Robert

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Waddington, David

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wall, Patrick

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hordern, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hornby, Richard

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Osborn, John

  White, Roger, (Gravesend)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  172

  173

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Worsloy, Marcus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Winterion, Nicholas

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McBride, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)

  McCann, John

  Allaun, Frank (Saltord, E.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Ashley, Jack

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ashton, Joe

  Foot, Michael

  Mackie, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Ford, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Barnes, Michael

  Eraser, John (Norwood)

  McManus, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Baxter, William

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Beaney, Alan

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Marquand, David

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Golding, John

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mendelson, John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Hamling, William

  Milne, Edward

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harper, Joseph

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Buchan, Norman

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Cant, R. B.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hilton, W. S.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Horam, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hughes. Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Bert

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Janner, Greville

  Padley, Walter

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Paget, R. T.

  Cronin, John

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  John, Brynmor

  Pardoe, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

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

  Prescott, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rankin, John

  Dempsey, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dormand, J. D.

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leonard, Dick

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Ellis, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  English, Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Ewing, Henry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  174

  175

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Taverne, Dick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Sillars, James

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silverman, Julius

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Whitlock, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Small, William

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Torney, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Steel, David

  Varley, Eric G.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Woof, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Strang, Gavin

  Wallace, George

  Mr. James A. Dunn and

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Watkins David

  Mr. Tom Pendry.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Weitzman, David

  Swain, Thomas

  Wellbeloved, James

  Resolved,
  That this House, recognising the problems of heavy industry following five years of almost total economic stagnation, welcomes the steps
  176
  Her Majesty's Government have taken and are taking to restore confidence in the economy, with the object of providing increased employment, greater price stability and a sound base for future expansion.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Industrial Relations may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move,
  That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971 (S.1., 1971, No. 1761), dated 27th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th November, be withdrawn.
  We are praying against this order, which brings into operation some of the most objectionable parts of the Industrial Relations Act. The various paragraphs of the order bring into operation in toto 59 Sections of the Act, eight Sections partially, Schedule 1, two paragraphs of Schedule 3, Schedule 6, Schedule 8, relating to amendments to the Act, and Schedule 9, repeals of previous Acts.
  The order has been in operation since 1st December last year. At that date the National Industrial Relations Court opened its doors for business. The powers of the Act now under discussion could have been used at any time since 1st December. The order brings into force Part VIII of the Act which deals with emergency procedures. It also brings into operation Part III, dealing with collective bargaining, under which the provisions relating to the agency shop and the approved close shop agreements apply.
  What we find so objectionable is that it brings into operation the so-called unfair industrial practices, except those relating to the rights or so-called rights of a worker or trade union member. We are very much concerned with the emergency procedures laid down in the Act. A Press hand-out from the Department of Employment of 4th November, 1971, said,
  "From December parties will be able to take action in the Industrial Relations Court relating to all these provisions"—
  178
  that is, the provisions in the order—
  "and also the registration provisions."
  Up until today those provisions had not been extensively used. I do not argue that they should be used because, if they were used, it would exacerbate an already explosive situation. If they were used, they would be totally irrelevant to the needs and requirements of the present conflict in the coal mining industry.
  The Government have got themselves into a false position. We have the coal miners' strike on our hands. It is the first national strike in the industry since 1926. Last year, we had the biggest loss of days in strike action since 1926. The Government argue that matters are much better. They say there are fewer strikes. But we are losing far more days in strike action. Although we get fewer strikes in numbers, we are getting longer and bigger strikes, and they are more difficult to settle.
  According to the Government, we are seeing a great achievement. The fact that we had 13 million days lost in strikes last year as against 11 million the previous year and an average of between three million and 3½ million in the days of the Labour Government is an advance. If that is the sort of advance that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want in industrial relations, it is not the sort of advance that the people want.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all that he is doing is merely restating the need for the introduction of this legislation? It was not on the Statute Book at the time that we were building up the figures that he has produced.
  Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) intervened. The Secretary of State has gone into print on this matter. It is not my usual bed-time reading, but my attention has been drawn to the report of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman which was published in Reader's Digest, in the course of which he talked about the emergency powers that we are discussing under this order. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The Act allows me, as Secretary of State for Employment, to apply to the new National Industrial Relations Court for a 'cooling-off' period—of up to 60 days—in any dispute that I feel might endanger public health, create serious disorders or severely damage the

  179
  economy. Where the livelihoods of a large number of workers would be affected, I can also ask the court to order a secret ballot if there is doubt whether a majority of the workers want to take industrial action."
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked:
  "Won't such a complex Act create a lawyers' paradise?"
  He replied:
  "No, I don't believe it will. Like any law in a free society, it is not meant to be invoked in every dispute."
  It has not been invoked in the coal miners' dispute, and for one simple reason. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is totally irrelevant to any solution of the dispute. In any case, instead of using his conciliation powers, instead of using the machinery, instead of trying to get a settlement of the dispute, the right hon. Gentleman is standing behind the National Coal Board and making it difficult for the Board to reach a settlement.
  It is no good the right hon. Gentleman putting his hand on his heart and telling the House, as he did in the postmen's strike, "I am being absolutely fair and neutral; I am not on one side or the other." Everyone knows that he was against the postmen and in favour of a continuation of the dispute until the postmen were forced to accept less than they wanted. A similar situation has arisen in respect of the coal miners. But there is an important difference which the right hon. Gentleman should understand. The coal miners are a great deal more experienced in industrial conflict than were the postmen.
  The right hon. Gentleman faces a very dangerous situation. He could invoke Section 141 and have a ballot, putting to the coal miners' whether they were really in favour of the strike. I should like to see him try. Whereas about 58 per cent. were originally in favour of the dispute, he would find today that the coal miners are almost 100 per cent. for it.
  We cannot have a situation in which, on the eve of the dispute, the Chairman of the National Coal Board withdraws all previous offers and expect the miners not to become angry at the Board and the Government, who are applying a wages policy while telling this House that no wages policy exists.
  180
  We believe that the order, which brings in all these Sections, is totally irrelevant to solving the problems in the coal mining or in any other industry. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to solve the coal mining dispute, let him use his conciliation machinery properly. Let him, in fact, withdraw the letters that he sent to the chairmen of the arbitration boards drawing their attention to the speech of the Chancellor in the Budget debate when the Government were pointing to the norm. If the Government want to solve the problem they should use the machinery in the correct way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go from this House tonight and begin to become active in solving the coal mining dispute, not to line up behind the Board and make it difficult for it to reach a settlement.
  I have no intention of making a long speech tonight. However, I should like to draw attention to one other part of the order. I refer to the part which deals with compensation, the part which states that trade unions or trade unionists may be fined, although the Act does not call it a "fine". If trade unions or workers do not desire to carry out this particular Section of the Act, they could find themselves inside a prison. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is not true, but I could quote again what he said in Reader's Digest. The facts are that heavy penalties can be imposed on the trade union movement as a result of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. Wherever this kind of law has been applied, as in Australia and other countries, where trade unions have refused to pay the fine or compensation, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, industrial conflict has intensified, not diminished.
  Since 1st December, when this part of the Act came into operation, we have not seen it play any positive rôle in helping to solve an industrial conflict. Therefore, it is an irrelevant and dangerous Act which makes difficult situations even worse. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against the order tonight.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I have never heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) make a

  181
  weaker speech or one with less conviction than that which he made tonight in moving the Prayer. I am astonished, after all that this was billed for, that we should have such a mouse come out from the hon. Gentleman whose bellow we normally expect.
  The hon. Gentleman made three points in the course of his speech. I will deal with each point briefly, because it is not worth detaining the House long over them.
  First, the hon. Gentleman told us that last year the largest number of working days were lost in this country since 1926, that this must be the result of Tory activities and of the Act in particular, and that this was an argument against introducing these Sections of the Act which the order would bring into operation. But the hon. Gentleman knows, as well as anybody in the House, that the Act was not in operation last year, because we spent much time debating it here. He knows perfectly well that, with the introduction of these orders, we are only now seeing the implementation of major parts of the Act.
  Even when it went on the Statute Book it was having no effect until the orders were laid to bring into operation the various parts of the Act to which they referred. Therefore the whole of that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was based on a false foundation. Indeed, I should turn it the other way and say to the hon. Gentleman that if the situation is as bad as he suggested at the beginning of his speech, that shows even more firmly the need for action such as the Government have taken in introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the relevant part of the Act became law immediately it should be used against the miners?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but if he will allow me I will deal with every point made by his hon. Friend. That was his third point, and I will deal with it thirdly in my speech.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Act empowers the Secretary of State to apply a cooling-off period, provided—and the hon. Gentleman listed the items in the Act which have to be
  182
  fulfilled to convince the court—that the dispute is endangering the national economy, national safety, and various other things. What the hon. Gentleman failed to tell the House—the House does not need reminding of this, but apparently the hon. Gentleman does—is that the Minister must also be convinced that the use of the cooling-off period would be likely to lead to a settlement. That must be a matter for the judgment of the Minister. It must be a matter of timing. Because, at this stage in the affair, the Minister has not decided that a cooling-off period is likely to lead to a settlement, or that it is the right time to apply it, there is surely no good reason for not having such legislation on the Statute Book. Again the hon. Gentleman has failed to make his point.
  The hon. Gentleman's third point is that involved in the Sections of the Act to be brought into force by this order there is the question of alleged prison sentences, but we have had no indication that there is any reality in that. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about fines, but he knows that the Act does not provide for the introduction of fines. It contains a provision about awards for compensation. The hon. Gentleman has not given one indication, either tonight or during the debates on the Bill, of any way in which the compensation awards would be other than fair and just. The hon. Gentleman did not remind the House that the compensation awards apply against both employers and trade unions who breach agreements into which they have entered. Therefore on his third point he has failed to make the case for rejecting the order.
  The order provides for the introduction of much of the machinery by which the Industrial Relations Act will operate. We all know in this House—and the thinness of the attendance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's speech—[interruption.]—It is not this side of the House which is objecting. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are supposed to be objecting. The thinness of attendance and the weakness of the speech of the hon. Member for Walton show that hon. Members opposite no longer have arguments of force and validity to make against the Act, and that much of the improvement which our industrial relations so badly need in

  183
  the months ahead will rest on the smooth operation of the Act.
  The House should give this order its blessing. Hon Members would serve the interests of the unemployed, those who want to work, their constituents and the country at large if they would try to help the generation of the good will on both sides of industry which is essential to the prosperity of industry and those who work in it.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: This order is a monument to the belief that once this House passes legislation, everything happens automatically. In fact, the passing of legislation is only the first part of the proceedings. Democracy rests upon consent and if that is withheld, the laws which the House passes do not work in practice.
  If my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did not deploy on this occasion the full power of his oratory, it was probably because of his implicit recognition that this issue will be determined not here but outside. Oratory at this moment would be out of place. My hon. Friend put the case adequately and effectively and said all that needed to be said—that it is one thing for the Government to pass legislation like this but quite another for them to enforce it.
  This legislation affects the relationship not between persons and Government but between persons and other persons. That type of legislation is often ineffective, and so it will prove in this case. The Government are trying to control relationships between employer and union or employee. One thing which emerged from our long discussions on the Bill was the extreme complexity of such relationships and the extreme difficulty of laying down rules which would apply throughout the whole range.
  It will prove impossible to regulate these relationships, so the legislation will be piecemeal—effective in some respects but not in others. Consequently the law will fall into disrepute. The Act will apply in some areas. It will prevent some things being done where it can be enforced, but in other areas it cannot and will not be enforced.
  184
  So our reactions to the Act are varied. From their personal knowledge of industry, my hon. Friends know that it will be impossible to enforce, so they are not too worried. But some of us are worried about the possible implications of the Act on industrial relations we know something about. Section 18 brings in special provisions for the approval of closed shop agreements. This provision was introduced—to some extent, at any rate—because of protests made by myself and others on this side about the consequences of relations in the entertainment industry. It was traditional to attempt to control the numbers coming into the industry: unless there was an effective closed shop, the industry would be even more showered with excessive labour than is the case already.
  This provision, which was introduced to permit the possibility of a closed shop in certain circumstances, will benefit some parts of industry. It will be of no benefit in the area for which it was introduced. If hon. Members opposite are to be believed, it was introduced to give some protection to the entertainment industry, to make it possible for that industry to regulate the numbers coming in. However, this provision does not permit that, because it prevents the pre-entry closed shop. The desirability of controlling numbers entering the industry applies not only to the entertainment industry and to performers and technicians but over a wider field where the union performs more than the ordinary functions of a union but a series of functions such as those performed by barristers-at-law and other professions whose entry is controlled by examination. This is the alternative to an examination qualification.
  Where, as in the case of this closed shop qualification, the closed shop is not allowed to be pre-entry, it is no use. It has to be pre-entry or it is not a closed shop. It is merely a recognition of the existence of trade unionism after the event. In these areas what is necessary is a recognition of the existence of trade unionism before entry. Therefore, this provision is valueless.
  In the whole of this legislation one sees that the attempt by Parliament to provide effectively for the complex relationships between unions and their

  185
  members and between unions and employers will prove to be ineffective. I say, not only on behalf of the trade unions in the entertainment industry but also on behalf of employers, that the Act will do nothing but a disservice to industrial relations in entertainment. We shall have to attempt to get round the legislation. We shall have to try to make agreements with reputable employers to overcome the barriers which are placed in the way of unions by this legislation. We shall be able to make agreements with reputable employers, but there will be disreputable employers who will get round the agreements. Consequently, the whole range, tone and standing of the industry will be lowered. This fear is shared by the best employers in the industry as well as by the trade unionists concerned.
  I say that this legislation is no good, in that it sets out to control relations which are not susceptible to legislative control. In so far as the order seeks to regulate what already exists, it will have no effect upon the present situation. In so far as it seeks to prevent a control which has been exercised hitherto by unions, the unions and the best of employers will try to get round the order. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walton did not spend a great deal of time upon the order, he spent as much time on it as it deserved.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: The Opposition have been particularly schizophrenic tonight. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and from a seated position the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), have complained that, though they do not like the Bill and the emergency provisions, they cannot understand why the Government have not brought them into force. It seems to me that hon. Members should be grateful—
  Mr. Heffer: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that I said precisely the opposite. I can well understand why the Government have not brought them in.
  Mr. Page: I think that the hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that the Government had not brought them in. and this was the view of the hon. Member for Salford, West also, I think. The
  186
  hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that there had already been a ballot in the coal mines. He will recall that the vote in that ballot was 58 per cent. in favour of a strike, which is 3 per cent. above the 55 per cent. needed to call a strike. Had it not been for a change in the N.U.M. rules this year—
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: What the hell do you know about it?
  Mr. Page: I do not want to take too long, and the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make a speech.
  Mr. Concannon: I have 20 miners from my constituency locked up today—not under this Act, because it is irrelevant to it all, but why should I have to come and listen to you waffling while I have 20 miners locked up?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of waffling.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman seems proud that some of his constituents, if they are his constituents, or members of his union, have been locked up.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: He did not say that.
  Mr. Concannon: Never mind. He is at it again.
  Mr. Page: He is concerned that they are locked up, and they are locked up, presumably, because they were involved in non-peaceful picketing. This is something which worries people greatly. It is worrying to the people of Britain that, because of non-peaceful picketing, two power stations are already closed down and are failing to put electricity into the national grid.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There will be some more next week.
  Mr. Page: Hon. Members opposite seem to be happy that the public should be inconvenienced in this way. It seems that their attitude to the Industrial Relations Act and the present law covering picketing is that, if there is something in the law which they do not like, the law should be ignored. If that is so, I hope that they will say so in the debate.
  The main meat of the Act—[An HON. MEMBER: "Filibuster".] It is hardly fair to be accused of filibustering if one

  187
  is hardly allowed to make a speech at all.
  This Commencement No. 3 Order brings into force a large part of the Act. It is surprising that so many of its provisions were ignored by the hon. Member for Walton when he opened the debate. He referred to only a couple. I should have expected him to be rather pleased to see Sections 8 and 9 in the list, to mention only two, which stop the free rider. It has been a source of complaint in the trade union movement over the years that there have been members in factories and other establishments who accept the negotiating and other responsibilities of trade unions but pay nothing for them. It is blind of Labour Members continually to ignore any beneficial parts of the Act, to take the attitude of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who achieved a great success during the passing of the Act, and say that what he achieved is of no use to members of the profession for which he speaks. It is a sad reflection on them.
  I welcome the Act, and I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the perspicacious way in which it has been used so far. It is sad that hon. Members opposite, when the country is suffering high unemployment—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: And a Tory Government.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure the provision, as part of the National Health Service, by local health authorities of voluntary vasectomy services on the same basis as the contraception services provided under the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act 1967, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session providing for the said services;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of all sums received, by virtue of the said Act of 1967 as amended by the said Act of the present Session, by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamish Gray.]

INCOME TAX (MR. DAVID EVANS)
11.41 p.m.
Mr. Brynmor John: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of Mr. David Ewart Evans, who is a 74-year-old man, and to indicate the rather unfortunate circumstances in which he comes to be faced with having to pay to the Inland Revenue £543·35 in interest upon back income tax liabilities.
In 1947, Mr. Evans retired through ill-health from his position as a furniture salesman. In order to have a living, he became a stall holder in the local market, selling wool and some clothing. Shortly after the commencement of this business, he was approached by an officer of the
200
local income tax office, a man who had been in the employment of the Inland Revenue for about 30 years. This man is now deceased and, since the Financial Secretary is aware of his identity, I do not propose to mention his name, in order to save his family from some pain, at any rate.
Suffice it to say that this man stated that he was soon to retire from his Revenue post and wanted to set up as an accountant. He asked Mr. Evans whether he could handle his tax affairs. Mr. Evans agreed. From then until 1966 the man ostensibly acted for him. Mr. Evans sent him year by year his accounts showing income and expenditure, and thereafter Mr. Evans would have a note from his so-called accountant stating that he was not liable for tax in any year, quoting a file number which purported to be the file number allocated by the Inland Revenue authorities to his case, and a bill for professional services which averaged in the case of Mr. Evans the sum of £10 a year.
Mr. Evans' business was not a huge one. Consequently he found nothing remarkable in the fact that he had to pay no tax. Therefore he accepted the so-called accountant's notes in good faith.
In 1966, the so-called accountant died, and Mr. Evans subsequently wrote to his widow asking her about the fate of papers which he had sent to the deceased. The widow replied that she could not trace any, whereupon Mr. Evans went to the income tax authorities. It is accepted by the Treasury, I think, that in so doing he acted promptly. Then the income tax inspector staggered him by saying that Mr. Evans' call was the first intimation that the Revenue had that Mr. Evans was in business as a stall holder at the market or of his being engaged in any trade.
Apparently the deceased had never submitted any returns or performed any of the services that he pretended to have done. He had been engaged in obtaining

201
money from Mr. Evans which would, if detected during his life, surely have led to a criminal prosecution.
I think that it will be helpful if I interpose here some facts which I know will also be accepted by the Financial Secretary. This was not the only case in which the Revenue had reason to be dissatisfied with the activities of the deceased.
Prior to 1960 the Inland Revenue was aware that there were a number of cases in which the deceased had acted as agent on behalf of taxpayers. He was seen by the District Inspector of the Pontypridd second district in 1962 and asked to give an undertaking not to act as agent for taxpayers. Later the same year a special investigator from the Inland Revenue also found that the deceased or his wife had acted as agent in a number of cases, and it was suspected that one of the two had forged taxpayers' signatures and presented wholly fictitious accounts. The deceased was again asked by the special investigator to give a written undertaking not to act for taxpayers in future. I was told in subsequent correspondence, which I had with the Financial Secretary, that these undertakings were of no efficacy since the Revenue had no control over him at that time.
When the matter came to light Mr. Evans was referred to the services of a reputable accountant and subsequently, after an assessment of 20 years back tax, there was an appeal to the general commissioners sitting at Pontypridd regarding this assessment. The relevant findings of the general commissioners were as follows: first, that wilful default was committed under the Act, not personally by Mr. Evans, but by the deceased on his behalf; secondly, that Mr. Evans had supplied the deceased with the information necessary to prepare income tax returns, but that this had been deliberately withheld by the deceased; and, thirdly, that Mr. Evans had neither expressly nor impliedly authorised the deceased to commit fraud or wilful default on his behalf.
Mr. Evans was therefore charged with £1,250 arrears of tax. I understand that, save for a few pounds, this has been paid. It is also fair to say that the Inland Revenue has waived any penalties which might have been imposed but has charged interest on the money which was
202
owed from the initial date to date; hence, the sum of £543·35. It is this charge which aggrieves Mr. Evans, and it is one which I believe could be mitigated in whole or in part in this case.
I know that under Section 88(4) of the Taxes Management Act, 1970,
"The Board may at their discretion mitigate (whether before or after judgment) any interest due under this section".
Mr. Evans has been charged under this Section.
I am also told by the Financial Secretary that the practice of the Revenue is to mitigate these interest payments only where the full charge would cause hardship. This practice is not enshrined in any statutory provision, and I believe that it is much too restrictive an application of the discretion given to the Revenue in cases such as this.
In this case Mr. Evans is virtually morally blameless of having failed to submit his tax returns, and so on. He was wickedly misled and cheated. Where then are these comparatively rare facts in taxation cases, I believe that consideration of the taxpayer's conduct should be one of the factors which could lead to mitigation. If hardship is the only criterion, then a man whose conduct is much more culpable may be excused the interest payments, whereas a man who is virtually blameless, may have to pay because he can afford to do so.
Second, may I request the Financial Secretary to look again at the definition of hardship. It may be considered as being a hardship that a man who is morally blameless should be called upon to pay so vast a sum at so late a stage. In addition to that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the financial considerations. It is true that the man can, in fact, pay the interest due, but the fact is that to do so would eat up between one-quarter and one-third of his savings, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is a 74-year-old man who owns no house of his own and who therefore has these small, modest savings as his only accumulation from life.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman could easily regard that as hardship and therefore consider a whole or partial remission on that ground. I believe that a partial remission could be justified by the fact

203
that it was not until 1967 that the taxpayer became aware of the non-payment, and it may be just to limit the interest in this case, if the Financial Secretary is so minded, to the last five years, to the time when the taxpayer himself became aware of the non-disclosure of his tax records, and not charge it over the last 20 years.
The Revenue authorities themselves have not been as diligent in this case on behalf of the taxpayer as they ought to have been. I think it is accepted that there was dissatisfaction on the part of Inland Revenue with the activities of the deceased. Indeed, there were suspicions that he or his wife had committed serious criminal offences. Yet all the Revenue did was on two occasions to interview the deceased and to obtain from him undertakings which they must have known were of no efficacy at all. The Financial Secretary has told me in a letter than the Revenue authorities could not enforce those undertakings against the deceased, and therefore I believe that whoever interviewed him at that time—that is, in about 1960 to 1962—must also have known that the undertakings were of no efficacy.
If they had initiated or considered legal proceedings, even an unsuccessful prosecution of this man would have alerted ordinary, trustful men like Mr. Evans to irregularities at least six years earlier than they came to light. The Revenue chose to rely upon meaningless declarations, upon scraps of paper which they knew were worthless. In those circumstances, the least that can be done by the Revenue authorities is to recognise that fact, albeit tacitly, by mitigating the interest.
Even within the framework of our tax laws as they stand, there are men who, through no fault of their own, in the commonly accepted sense of the word "fault", become involved in words like "wilful default". Such men are bound to be puzzled and aggrieved where their own rôles are honourable. Such a man is Mr. Evans, the subject of this debate. The Minister would be doing both an honourable and a just thing if he were to announce a remission of the whole or part of the interest in this case, and I appeal to him to do so.
11.54 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has put the case on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Evans, with great force and with great persuasiveness. It is a case which he has pursued with great diligence over recent months.
Very briefly, the case may be summed up in the question whether the Inland Revenue is right to demand interest on the arrears of taxes in the rather special circumstances of the case. The hon. Gentleman has stated the facts of the case so fully and so accurately that it spares me the duty of rehearsing them again. Perhaps I might add one gloss to one or two of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman said that the deceased—whose name I shall not mention, either—referred to a file number and thereby added what one might say verisimilitude to the deceit that he was practising on Mr. Evans. In fact, he relied on his experience in the Inland Revenue to choose a file number sufficiently far ahead of the current lists, so that it was never likely to conflict with that of any other taxpayer.
There are three general points I should state by way of background. I am referring not to the particular case of Mr. Evans but to the general position. First, where a taxpayer is found to have committed wilful default within the meaning of the Taxes Acts, the Revenue is entitled to ask not only for the tax which should have been paid and for the interest on that tax down to the date of payment, but also for penalties. Had Mr. Evans' case fallen within that description, not £1,800 but over £4.000 would have been payable.
Second, there was never any question of penalties becoming due—although the General Commissioners did not regard Mr. Evans as being entirely blameless—because there was nothing in the nature of fraud or deliberate intention to conceal. I accept that, when laymen become involved with phrases like "wilful default", which are used in the Taxes Acts, obviously in a special sense, they become a little confused. No one has ever suggested that Mr. Evans has been guilty of any form of dishonesty.

205
Third, interest is quite different from penalties, which are intended to deter taxpayers from deliberately concealing or mis-stating their income or otherwise fiddling their taxes. But interest is simply intended as a commercial restitution for the late payment of taxes.
Sections 88 and 89 of the Taxes Management Act, 1970, the consolidating Act, provide for interest to be paid where there has been, within the meaning of the Act, wilful default. The logic of this is that the taxpayer has had the use of the money which, if his taxes had been paid at the due date, would have been available to the Revenue and the general body of taxpayers.
Mr. John: Surely it cannot be a purely commercial consideration precisely because of the statutory power of the Revenue to mitigate interest, which is not confined to any class of case.
Mr. Jenkin: That is obviously right, but Section 88 is activated only if there has been a finding of
"fraud, wilful default or neglect"
The power to mitigate interest is designed to take account of hardship, where, in the extreme case, one cannot get blood from a stone, where it is not possible to expect a taxpayer to pay interest by way of commercial restitution.
I was saying that the logic of this is that the taxpayer has had the money and the Exchequer has not. If the taxpayer had paid his taxes at the due date, he would not have had the money during the period of some 20 years. The Exchequer would have had it.
The value of that money in the hands, as it has been, of the taxpayer is expressed by reference to the interest that it might have earned. I know theft the hon. Gentleman has studied the Section. The rates of interest are not by current standards extravagant, being 3 per cent. up to 1967 and 4 per cent. thereafter. This sum of interest is taken as the measure of the Exchequer's loss and a taxpayer's gain by reason of the taxpayer's failure, for whatever reason, within the meaning of "wilful default", to pay the taxes at the due date. Therefore, it is right that when payment of tax is delayed through the fault of the taxpayer—and this is what activates the Section—the payments when made should carry
206
interest. As a general proposition this is one which cannot seriously be challenged.
Applying it to the facts of this case, the hon. Gentleman's main argument has been that, because of the activities of the deceased, Mr. Evans himself was not personally guilty of wilful default. It is right that there was a finding by the general commissioners that Mr. Evans did not personally commit wilful default. One must go on to say that these words are to be construed in accordance with the law. The law may be found in cases as well as in the Statute.
The general commissioners were referred to a case which made it clear that, if the agent is guilty of wilful default, that wilful default must be imputed to the principal. As the hon. Gentleman intimated, an appeal was contemplated at one stage from the finding of the general commissioners and a draft case stated was requested from the commissioners. In the draft case stated, the following paragraph appears:
"It would be unfortunate if a taxpayer could escape liability by saying, 'I have employed an agent who has failed to submit my accounts. You do not know of my existence until after my agent's death and although he may have been guilty of fraud and wilful default I am not liable for his actions'. The short answer to this argument is that the Revenue is by law automatically interested and is a party in any transaction relating to tax matters between Principal and Agent. To hold otherwise would defeat the very basis of the system of taxation."
It is the Revenue's view that this is a perfectly accurate statement of the law as supported by the cases and that it clearly applies in the present case. Technically, therefore, the commissioners' finding that although Mr. Evans had not personally committed wilful default he is to be taken in the eyes of the law as having been guilty of wilful default, committed through his agent the deceased, is correct.
The hon. Gentleman says that, even though that may be so and the Section is activated, the fact of the matter is that his constituent is "virtually morally blameless". I do not want to put too much on the qualification which the hon. Gentleman himself put when he said "virtually morally blameless", because he knows that the commissioners did not wholly exonerate Mr. Evans. I again quote from the draft case stated:
"… we consider that the appellant"—

207
that is Mr. Evans—
"is not entirely blameless for there is no evidence that he ever saw or asked to see prepared accounts or signed returns."
It is highly strange that for 20 years an ordinary man of the world, let alone a man who had served in a commercial capacity as a salesman and who subsequently was in business on his own account, albeit in a small way, could feel that he had done all that was necessary by simply submitting documents and figures and paying an accountant's bill without ever seeing a tax return which he signed or any of the official documents.
That was the finding of the commissioners, and I think that the Revenue is entitled to take note of it. I may add that, although a case stated was asked for by Mr. Evans, in fact it was not proceeded with, no doubt on wise advice.
The hon. Gentleman goes on to say: "In spite of that, the Revenue's interpretation of the power to mitigate interest is much too restrictive, being confined by practice to the concept of hardship". One can make a general point here, that the Revenue, when operating these Sections which give the discretion, has to do something more formal than what one might call palm-tree justice. It has to have a practice. It is part of the philosophy of the Inland Revenue—which I should warmly support—that it attempts to treat in the same way taxpayers who find themselves in the same case. The Revenue does not seek to distinguish between taxpayers who are indistinguishable on the facts. It must, therefore, have a practice.
The practice here is that, if wilful default is established, and if interest is therefore payable, the only circumstance in which it would be right to mitigate interest is if the payment of interest would cause hardship to the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman said that this then lands one in an inconsistency: if a taxpayer who may be very culpable—who may have committed fraud—has little or no means, he may be excused the payment of interest, whereas another taxpayer in the position of Mr. Evans, who is virtually morally blameless but who has had wilful default imputed to him by law, will have to pay interest simply because he has the resources to pay.
208
I think that I must accept that criticism. If a taxpayer has not got the resources to pay his dues, there is not much that the Inland Revenue can do about it. Of course, if he has been guilty of a crime, he can be sent to gaol; but that does not necessarily get any money out of him from the point of view of the Exchequer. If there had been grounds for a prosecution, the Inland Revenue would have prosecuted; but it would not have been Mr. Evans, it would have been the deceased. The Inland Revenue did what it could in the circumstances as they were known to it at the time.
I argue, therefore, that there is no substance in the hon. Gentleman's argument on the distinction between a man who has been very culpable, as he put it, and a man to whom wilful default has been imputed.
Then, says the hon. Gentleman, it must be hardship in this case if it will mean eating up half or a third of Mr. Evans' savings to pay the interest due on the tax. Here, one is engaged only in hypothesis, but it may well be that these savings could be built up, and interest on them accrue, because Mr. Evans was not paying the tax which he later conceded was due over 20 years but which he allowed, as it were, to fructify in his savings account.
It is difficult in these circumstances to argue that he should be entitled to keep the fruits of that because he is 74, because his savings do not in fact amount to very much, and that he should keep the interest in face of the general body of taxpayers, the vast majority of whom pay their taxes in due time and have not the same opportunity to build up their savings out of taxes which they ought to have paid.
I would answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that he made a moving and powerful plea on behalf of Mr. Evans, but in the circumstances of this case I cannot agree that the Revenue has been wrong in its interpretation of the Section. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury Ministers cannot in the last resort tell the Revenue how to interpret the law.
Perhaps I might add this, though without holding out any hopes at all. If the interest cannot be agreed between the taxpayer and the Revenue, the inspector

209
must go once again before the commissioners to ask them to make the order for interest. It is open to the taxpayer there to argue that interest should not be paid. I am bound to say that, in the circumstances, I think that it would not be wise for Mr. Evans to spend a lot of his resources, perhaps employing professional help, to fight the case at that stage; but that must be up to him.
At this stage, I cannot see that the Revenue has interpreted the law wrongly.
210
Interest has accrued on the tax which Mr. Evans ought to have paid over the 20 years in which he was in trade and earning profits. He has the savings out of which to pay it. I think that it is right, in fairness to the general body of taxpayers who pay their taxes on the due date, that interest on this unpaid tax should be paid.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  British Steel Corporation (Newport)
  British Steel Corporation (Newport)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Employment Opportunities (Swansea)
  Employment Opportunities (Swansea)
  Housing Improvement Grants (Blaenavon)
  Housing Improvement Grants (Blaenavon)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Redundancies)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Redundancies)
  James Report
  James Report
  Paediatric Services
  Paediatric Services
  Lake Vyrnwy Reservoir
  Lake Vyrnwy Reservoir
  Mid-Wales (Development)
  Mid-Wales (Development)
  EDWARD ELGAR BIRTHPLACE TRUST
  EDWARD ELGAR BIRTHPLACE TRUST
  CONVEYANCING CHARGES
  CONVEYANCING CHARGES
  LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
  LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
  UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  MR. F. McALLEN
  MR. F. McALLEN
  SOUTH WESTERN LONDON SESSIONS (TRIAL OF SOLICITOR)
  SOUTH WESTERN LONDON SESSIONS (TRIAL OF SOLICITOR)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Ship-Building and Ship-Repairing
  Ship-Building and Ship-Repairing
  Gas Industry (Conversions)
  Gas Industry (Conversions)
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Steel Ingots (Stockpiling)
  Steel Ingots (Stockpiling)
  Shipping (Investment Grants)
  Shipping (Investment Grants)
  Swordsticks
  Swordsticks
  Steel Industry (Joint Steering Group)
  Steel Industry (Joint Steering Group)
  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Secretary of State (Visits to the North East)
  Secretary of State (Visits to the North East)
  Non-Industrial Employment (North East)
  Non-Industrial Employment (North East)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Executive Officers)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Executive Officers)
  Foulness (Rescue Facilities)
  Foulness (Rescue Facilities)
  Advertisements (Yorkshire Newspapers)
  Advertisements (Yorkshire Newspapers)
  RB 211
  RB 211
  Yorkshire Coalmining Area
  Yorkshire Coalmining Area
  Beers (Labelling)
  Beers (Labelling)
  Biscuit Cereals (Labelling)
  Biscuit Cereals (Labelling)
  Fishery Courses (Aberdeen)
  Fishery Courses (Aberdeen)
  Petrol Stations
  Petrol Stations
  Coal Industry (Statistics)
  Coal Industry (Statistics)
  Industrial Development (Hamilton)
  Industrial Development (Hamilton)
  Wales
  Wales
  Littlebrook Power Station, Dartford
  Littlebrook Power Station, Dartford
  Consultative Councils (Disabled Persons' Representation)
  Consultative Councils (Disabled Persons' Representation)
  Metals (Anti-Corrosion Treatment)
  Metals (Anti-Corrosion Treatment)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  M.V. "Germania"
  M.V. "Germania"
  Domestic Coal Consumers Council
  Domestic Coal Consumers Council
  >Industrial Development Certificates
  >Industrial Development Certificates
  Risca and Mynyddislwyn (Special Development Status)
  Risca and Mynyddislwyn (Special Development Status)
  Gas and Electricity Charges (Monopolies Commission Inquiry)
  Gas and Electricity Charges (Monopolies Commission Inquiry)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fraud (Penalty)
  Fraud (Penalty)
  Police Officers (Resignations)
  Police Officers (Resignations)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Miss Pauline Jones
  Miss Pauline Jones
  Balkan Tours (Expulsion of Representative)
  Balkan Tours (Expulsion of Representative)
SCOTLAND
  School Books
  School Books
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
  Scottish Trades Union Congress
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical School (Swansea)
  Medical School (Swansea)
  Work Experience
  Work Experience
  Technological Material (Preservation)
  Technological Material (Preservation)
  James Committee
  James Committee
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pre-packed Perishable Foods (Date Marking)
  Pre-packed Perishable Foods (Date Marking)
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme (Compensation)
  Brucellosis Eradication Scheme (Compensation)
  Foods (Nutritional Value)
  Foods (Nutritional Value)
  Fish Fingers
  Fish Fingers
  Fresh Meat
  Fresh Meat
  Sea Fisheries Committees (Pollution)
  Sea Fisheries Committees (Pollution)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  M.V. "GERMANIA"
  M.V. "GERMANIA"
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Royal Naval Stores, Lathalmond
  Royal Naval Stores, Lathalmond
  Wales
  Wales
  National Parks
  National Parks
EMPLOYMENT
  Prices and Wages
  Prices and Wages
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Factory Closures and Redundancies
  Factory Closures and Redundancies
  Voluntary Collective Bargaining
  Voluntary Collective Bargaining
ENVIRONMENT
  Accidents (Bedfordshire)
  Accidents (Bedfordshire)
  Travel to Work (Cost)
  Travel to Work (Cost)
  Zebra Crossings (Casualties)
  Zebra Crossings (Casualties)
  British Railways (Questionnaires and Censuses)
  British Railways (Questionnaires and Censuses)
  Redevelopment Areas (Land)
  Redevelopment Areas (Land)
  M18, Doncaster (Route)
  M18, Doncaster (Route)
  House of Commons (Electricity Supplies)
  House of Commons (Electricity Supplies)
  Empty Properties
  Empty Properties
  M1/M6 Link
  M1/M6 Link
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Roads (Norfolk)
  Roads (Norfolk)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Passenger Service Vehicle Licences
  Passenger Service Vehicle Licences
  Compensation Code
  Compensation Code
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Direct Labour Building
  Direct Labour Building
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Publications
  Publications
  DEPARTMENTAL PRESS RELEASES
  DEPARTMENTAL PRESS RELEASES
  GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
  GENERAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  Guy's Hospital (Staff Accommodation)
  Guy's Hospital (Staff Accommodation)
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Pension Deferments (Increments)
  Pension Deferments (Increments)
  Dental Fees (Private Patients)
  Dental Fees (Private Patients)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton
  Royal South Hants Hospital, Southampton
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Meals-on-Wheels Service
  Meals-on-Wheels Service
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 what progress has been made in the preparation of legislation based on the 1961 Bledisloe Report, which legislation has been promised by successive Governments ever since that Report was received.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, a Bill to amend the law relating to regulation and control of salmon and freshwater fisheries was introduced in another place on December 1 last by the honourable Member for Dorset, West. I understand that this Bill will incorporate a number of the recommendations of the Bledisloe Committee.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the degree of comfort I can obtain from his reply must depend upon two things: first, whether the Government will give time for this Private Member's Bi11, and secondly, whether they will give facilities and help to it?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should very much like my noble friend to be comforted, but I cannot commit Her Majesty's Government to giving time for this Bill. My noble friend will realise that the timetable is already fairly full. As regards the degree of help that is given, I think we must wait for the publication of the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I be allowed to remind the
492
Minister of what he told me in June last, when he said:
"…we are hoping that in the very near future the priorities will allow something to be done about this question ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/6/71, col. 321.]
Apparently nothing is to be done by the Government about this question; they are relying upon a Private Member's Bill, although they can give me no assurance that it will ever go through.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think we shall have to see what happens to the Bill that is introduced in another place. Obviously, there must not be duplication over this matter.

DESALINATION POLICY
2.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: 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 they will give an assurance that the abandonment of the Ipswich prototype desalination plant based on freeze distillation does not imply any lessening of Government support for development of desalination by other processes; and whether they will make a Statement on general progress of this important aspect of water conservation.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the decision on the Ipswich prototype does not itself affect support for the development of other processes of desalination. The reasons for that decision were given in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on January 27. During the last few years, work on desalination processes by the Atomic Energy Authority has helped British industry to maintain international competitiveness in marketing multi-stage flash distillation and electrodialysis plants. It has also led to the development of more advanced distillation processes, such as the vertical tube evaporator, which is to be used in a plant ordered by the Government of Gibraltar from British industry. In addition to development of the freezing process, considerable progress has been made in the development of reverse osmosis, which has an application both to desalting of brackish water and to

493
water renovation. In consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority, the Government are now considering the extent to which development should be supported from public funds.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's reply and his justifiable tribute to private industry, may I ask whether he can assure us that the Government are going to be enthusiastic about this enormous potential? And would he care to amend in any way the Minister's reply on Thursday last, when he said:
"This does not imply that we have lost all interest in desalination as a process …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/1/72; Vol. 327, col. 413.]
May I ask the Minister whether, far from losing all interest, the Government have a most positive and enthusiastic interest?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government have certainly a great interest in desalination. The problem, as my noble friend knows full well, is in making desalination compatible with direct commercial interests.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Earl on his exercise in blinding us by science? May I also ask him whether he is aware that in all these processes almost everyone is agreed that we shall never get really final proof until we have a large-scale plan; and can he say what prospect there is of a large-scale operation, now that the Ipswich scheme is cancelled?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything more to what I said earlier, because, of course, the Government's support for any future development must depend upon the report which they are expecting.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would it not help to reassure those noble Lords who put down Questions on this subject both last Thursday and this afternoon if the Government were to circulate in some form or another a statement showing the amounts which have been made available to the Atomic Energy Authority and to others concerned in desalination in each of, say, the last three years, and the budget for the year 1973? I am sure the noble Earl will confirm that these show a substantial degree of sup-
494
port by the Government for the work at Harwell, in support of both reverse osmosis and multi-stage flash distillation.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think I can help the noble Lord, in a certain way at least, by telling him that the expenditure from 1965 to the end of the current year has been about £5½ million. About half of this will have been spent on various distillation processes, about 20 per cent. each on secondary refrigerant freezing and reverse osmosis, and the remainder on other processes.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a very good record of commercial process development by firms in this country for application overseas in particular circumstances? Is he further aware that the precise scientific techniques of converting salt water into fresh water are well established, and that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is on completely the right point in asking for the full-scale development of a commercial plant in this country because it is in the application of these techniques on a full-scale commercial basis that progress is needed? Would my noble friend ask his advisers whether they would give further attention to this point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly call my right honourable friend's attention to what has been said. It is precisely when these theoretical exercises are put into practice that one may find snags.

CWRT-Y-GOLLEN RECRUITING CENTRE
LORD CHALFONT: 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 what plans they have for the continuation of Cwrt-y-Gollen as a recruiting centre for Welsh infantry regiments.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Cwrt-y-Gollen will continue to act as the training depot for the two Welsh

495
infantry regiments. The plan for Cwrty-Gollen to serve four regiments (including the two Welsh regiments) is still under consideration.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that my faith in the future of Cwrt-y-Gollen is increased by his impeccable pronunciation of the name? Is he aware that the colonels of all the regiments of the Prince of Wales's Division have recommended that Cwrt-y-Gollen should remain entirely Welsh? Is he further aware that Welsh recruits have stated that they would prefer to leave the Army altogether than to be recruited at Cwrt-y-Gollen and then find they have to serve in an English regiment? Will the noble Lord take these points into consideration when making a final decision?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I have been practising quite a lot. I am aware of what he says, and this is the reason why we are taking a great deal of trouble to come to the right decision about this matter.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration. Is he aware that this is not a simple administrative question but one that has deep political implications for the people of Wales? Will he assure the House that when this decision is made it will be made here by the noble Lord himself or by one of his Ministers and will not be left to administrative decision?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, I will see that this decision is made to Parliament in one way or another. It is not only on the noble Lord's side of the House that there is interest in this matter. I am continually reminded about it by my noble friend Lord Aberdare.

PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. This will be followed by a statement on Rhodesia, to be made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian.
496
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is answering a Private Notice Question in another place on Pakistan. It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be for the convenience of the House if this Answer were not repeated here but were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which, with the leave of the House, I will arrange to do.
The Answer referred to was as follows:
"I have read the statement issued by the Pakistan Government on January 30 that they have ended Pakistan's Commonwealth membership. The statement suggests that the reason for this action is the decision of Australia and New Zealand to announce recognition to-day and the intention of the United Kingdom to recognise Bangladesh shortly. I greatly regret this decision. It was of course for Pakistan to take for itself. Commonwealth membership is not a matter between Britain and individual members.
"I told the House on January 18 that I would make a Statement soon on the recognition of Bangladesh. I believe that our criteria for recognition are fulfilled so as to enable us to recognise Bangladesh in the very near future. This decision is in no way hostile to Pakistan, but we have to face the facts. The need now is to reconcile the parties and to try to bring about harmonious relations in the subcontinent."

COAL INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT INCOMES POLICY
2.47 p.m.
LORD BLYTON LORD BLYTON rose to move, That this House, calling attention to the situation in the coal mining industry, expresses its disapproval of the Government's policy towards incomes which made inevitable industrial action by the miners. The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The last three weeks have been grim for the mining community and also for the people of this country. As the House knows, I have been a member of the Miners' Union for 59 years. I was in the big strikes of 1921

497
and 1926 and I worked as an underground miner for 32 years. The strike of 1921 and the lock-out of 1926 were a fight to protect our living standards against the attacks made on us by the mine owners. The strike of 1921 was of 13 weeks duration and the 1926 lock-out was of 27 weeks. In both these disputes we had not only the private owners to fight but also the Tory Governments of those days who used all the forces of the State to crush us into submission. This left behind a long legacy of hate and bitterness, not only against private enterprise in the mines but against the Conservative Party as well. In the years that followed. miners wages were as low as 6s. 6½d. a day; unemployment was very high and many of us were still in debt from the 1926 lock-out. As a matter of fact, when I was an M.P. in 1947 I got a letter from the South Shields Borough Treasurer informing me that I still owed £ 10s. for the guardians' relief for my wife and children that I received in the 1926 lock-out. During all those years I had been paying 6d. a week off my payment.
When the mines were nationalised by the Attlee Government through the Bill piloted through the other place by my noble friend Lord Shinwell (then Emanuel Shinwell) the miners looked forward to a better future. We decided to work with the Coal Board to make it a viable industry, to reorganise it mechanically and, at the same time, to produce all the coal possible to meet the needs of the post-war years. There were then over 700,000 men in the mines, and the miners' economic power after the war was tremendous. Let me say at this juncture that Mr. Arthur Horner, the then secretary of the Miners' Union, told the miners that it would not be right to use that economic power to get all they could, regardless of others in the industrial field. Rather he urged us to build up good relations and get the pits mechanised. It was under his leadership that the conciliation agreement was reached and operated— although a few years ago the miners decided not to accept the arbitration issue in it.
So, my Lords, for 46 years we never had a national strike. We have faced terrible changes in our industry, such as closures, the transfer of men from pit to pit and making miners redundant at 55
498
years of age to keep younger men in work. In all this process we have had to carry the men with us in the face of great criticism. In 1962 we were producing 340 tons per man year. In 1970 production was increased to 456 tons per man year in the pits. So to-day the miners can say, "We have worked with the Board and done all they wanted. We have faced up to the plans of Governments with their fuel policies which have had such a disastrous effect on us, and at the end of the day our wages are slipping behind those of other industrial workers who have not been so conciliatory as we have been."
The possibility of closures, depicted by the Chairman of the National Coal Board as a result of the strike, does not strike fear into the hearts of the men. When men have faced closures like the miners have over some 700 or more pits from 1947, and when some 410,000 men have gone for ever from the industry, making its manpower 290,000, they become cynical. The miners say that if the industry cannot afford to pay a decent wage like other industries pay, the best thing to do is to close all the pits. Why is it that patient, hardworking men of the calibre of the miners, to whom many right honourable gentlemen in another place and many newspapers have paid generous tribute for their long years of co-operation, reasonableness and loyalty to their work, are now feeling not only a sense of outrage but also that all are against them; and that their years of co-operation have resulted in the realisation that the only way they can be recognised in the wages field is to strike?
Why have we a strike on our hands after half a century of conciliation and negotiation? Why is it that to-day our more affluent society has brought the miners to a position where there is a strike in every pit in the land? The speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place two weeks ago reminded me very forcibly of the speech made by Evan Williams in 1926 when he was the Secretary of the Coal Owners' Association. It was a case of the velvet glove with a horseshoe inside with which to hit us.
Before the last Election the Government made great play with the high rate of unemployment and the high cost of living not being met or compensated for

499
by wages. Their offer to-day, via the N.C.B., does not even compensate the men for the 10 per cent. increase in the cost of living in the last 12 months. The intended increases of rent in the near future under their fair deal for rents has not even been considered in this deal. The Board's offer is 2·3 per cent. less than the rise in the cost of living last year. On top of this, the Coal Board's Housing Association has already issued notices to the miners living in Association houses that the rents are to go up by £1 a week very soon. In advance of their legislation, the Government are pressurising local councils to put up rents by 50p per week in the next three months. In my own home town the public has been told that if rents do not go up by 50p soon, the rise will be £1 in October of this year. Many miners, my Lords, live in council houses.
It cannot be said that the Government were taken unawares by this strike. The claim was made last September and the strike started 16 weeks later. There was a considerable period in between when something effective could have been done. But that did not happen and so the Union was forced to this inevitable strike. My Lords, this is a strike that no one wanted. The Union saw that this was the only way out in the struggle for a decent wage for the vast numbers of men working in this industry. At the time of nationalisation, the miners were top in the wages league. Now they are 16th. There has been a large reduction in the relative earning position of miners in the last few years. It has been so great that pay increases of over £5 per week would be needed just to restore the position of four years ago; and all this was known to the Government.
The attitude of the Government has been to try to be silent, but the N.C.B. made one of the biggest blunders that I have ever witnessed in industrial relations. On the night of the strike the Coal Board told the miners that the meagre offer it had made would not remain open if the strike took place. If ever there was anything calculated to stiffen the backs of the men it was that. It was telling the men that if they did fight they would not get what the Board regarded as a minimum fair deal. It
500
was a call for unconditional surrender. That, my Lords, is the reward for 25 years of co-operation, and the miners have suffered for it.
The Labour Government attempted to introduce an incomes policy. I was not enamoured of it because there was no control of prices. The Conservatives attacked every attempt at an incomes policy on every occasion in another place, and voted many times against it. Now they are operating an incomes policy without bringing in legislation or controlling prices in any other way than by saying to the nationalised sector that there shall be a 5 per cent. increase in price and no more; and a 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. increase in wages, and no more. In such a situation this dispute arises. Pressure is being exerted on the public sector, where the Government are the employers, backed by the Treasury. At the same time they cannot pressurise the private sector, except by the creation of a million unemployed. In effect, my Lords, it is saying to those in the nationalised industries, "You must give up making claims for a decent wage as we want to protect prices and the community."
If the Government cannot control wages in the private sector, is it just to expect a response from those in the nationalised sector like the miners, the electricity and steel workers and public servants'? The Government cannot expect that people will just sit quiet under a policy that expects people in the State industries to make one-sided sacrifices when they are not protected. This is what is happening. The Government may try to deny it, but there is no doubt in our minds that the Coal Board were told that 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. was the extent to which they could go in a wages settlement. We saw this last year during the postmen's strike. To-day, it is the miners. Most likely the railway-men, electricity workers, steel workers and others will be the next, but there is no doubt that the Government ensured that the N.C.B. had not the freedom to negotiate a realistic wage settlement.
There is evidence that this happened. On December 21, 1971, the Miners' Executive met the Coal Board, and the Union deliberately asked the Chairman, "What about the Government's

501
involvement?"I now quote from the minutes of that meeting:
"The Board said they had carefully considered the N.U.M. claim on the basis of the Board's operations and looked at every possible means of improving the situation. It was for this reason that they devised their latest package offer. In so doing they had, of course, to take account of what was happening externally."
Mr. Eric Jacobs, writing in the Sunday Times on January 16, 1972—this is not a newspaper which supports Labour—said:
"The National Coal Board's proposals were dictated far more by a sense of what was appropriate within the current bargaining situation, the limits of which had been set by the Government, than by what was appropriate to the future of the Industry itself."
It is no good the Government keeping up the pretence that they offered no guidance to the Board. We all know that the Government are deeply involved and have been for quite a while now. The Government bear a great responsibility for this dispute and it is their responsibility to help to bring about a settlement. I know that in this debate the questions will be raised: where will the money come from, and what about the increase in the price of coal? I shall deal with these two issues in my speech. What is needed, first, is a capital reconstruction of the mining industry. The last capital reconstruction was in 1965, but since then some 200 pits have closed. It was said in another place that we have reached the extraordinary position in which the N.C.B. can win an operating surplus of £100 million a year without the industry's accounts showing a profit. If this matter were looked at again—and it will have to be—it would give the Board greater financial flexibility and room foræ. The Coal Board was saddled with the cost of taking over the mines. I thought at the time that we paid far too much and gave compensation to coal owners for assets which were worth very little.
Many of the pits concerned in that compensation operate no longer, yet we are burdened with payment for assets which have gone. Every time the miners seek to increase their pay they are faced with these burdens in the accounts as the reason for their not being given a decent wage. The debt is already too high in the light of the assets and it is a declining industry. Our assets—that is, the pits
502
which have closed—have gone, and now we are paying for and servicing debts on machinery which is no longer in use at pits which have been closed. The Government ought to be aware that the charge per ton in interest on the debt is higher to-day than it was in 1965 when the Chancellor knocked off £415 million. Therefore the burden on the miners and the industry is the weight of debt which is greater to-day, as the industry has contracted, than ever before. There is no doubt that there ought to be a write-off of a substantial part of the debt interest, which would help to meet the miners' case for an increase in wages. If the Government made a serious attempt to reduce this debt, some millions would be available to make a response to the miners without increasing the price of coal.
What has happened since the last write-off of capital in 1965? Annual coal consumption has fallen by some 40 million tons, and it continues to fall. As a result, fixed capital charges have to be borne on a diminished sales volume. This fall is partly due to the rapid development of natural gas, which was not foreseen in 1965 at the time of the last capital reconstruction. Since that time borrowings by the N.C.B. have been at high interest rates—averaging 7 per cent.—and consequently interest payments have risen rapidly as a prior charge on the accounts. In consequence, the 1970–71 interest payments per ton were already higher than before the last capital reconstruction, and the depreciation provision in the N.C.B. accounts is also rapidly increasing per ton. After the last capital reconstruction the net assets of the N.C.B. considerably exceeded the liability in terms of loans from the Secretary of State. By 1970, these reserves were eliminated as the fixed assets diminished by closures and indebtedness increased.
In 1970–71 loans from the Secretary of State exceeded the net assets. Probably some noble Lords will say that we are asking for a subsidy. Yet in recent years very large sums have been extended to private industry, some to market rivals of the N.C.B., such as the oil industry. Despite the massive problems of adjustment which the coal industry has had to face, in four years current account subsidies totalled only £57 million. On the other

503
hand, employment premiums to manufacturing industries totalled £635 million. Had the N.C.B. even been given the regional employment premium, that would have added some £40 million income to the Board in the last four years. Take the position in the public sector. In the last four years subsidy for transport undertakings on current account amounted to £634 million. Those subsidies to manufacturing and transport were well over twenty times as great as subsidies extended to the coal industry.
On capital account the N.C.B. has received very little help since the write-off of 1965. Yet in the four years, 1967 to 1970, nearly £1.700 million was handed out in direct subsidy to manufacturing industries as investment grants and only a small amount went to the N.C.B., and that only on activities other than coal production. During these years the coal industry, as I said, has had to finance at high rates of interest. Since the industry's partial write-off, over £2,000 million has been written off the debt of other nationalised industries, and on top of this figure is the recent write-off of £350 million of debt for the British Steel Corporation. Elsewhere in the British economy over £4,000 million of capital subsidy and capital write-off has been provided by the State since our last write-off. Yet the special industrial situation of this industry, with its problem of long-term decline on the scale we have seen and the regional employment problems associated with that, demands and merits an early major reconstruction.
Since the mid-1960s the coal industry has been denied investment grants which were extended to manufacturing, and thereby to the oil industry. As I have said, it has had to borrow at fixed interest. I hope that what I have said will be taken to heart by the Government. We have had no further reorganisation of capital debt, despite a contraction of above one-quarter of our market for coal and all the closures of mines.
Therefore this nation cannot expect miners to allow this vast imposition of debt and the denial of financial aid to the industry to operate as a denial also of adequate pay and conditions. The accounts of the N.C.B., to which the Government continually refer, have been severely affected by this artificial con-
504
tinuation of a massive debt burden, and we see a large operating surplus of the industry concealed by the massive interest and depreciation provision. This is not a normal problem of ability by an industry to pay adequate wages. It is a damaging game of manipulation of the accounts that is being played by the Treasury against the fair wages that the miners are entitled to receive. If the Government reduced this burden by capital reconstruction and write-off, which will have to be done, there would be money in the kitty to pay the men a decent wage.
Let me for a moment or two refer to the Secretary of State's statement of a rise of 15 per cent. in price if the men's request for increased wages were met. There is no doubt, as I have stated, that if the capital reconstruction took place and reduced the massive debt, for which the miners are not responsible, there need be no increase in the price of coal to meet the miners' demands. The Secretary of State could not have been referring to the price that the miners get for the coal. Last year, there was produced 133,315,000 tons of saleable coal and the proceeds work out at £5·84 per ton. He must have had in mind the end product of a ton of coal, which sells to-day to the consumer at £15 a ton in the country and £20 per ton in the South. The industry itself has been subsidising other industries with coal below cost price at the expense of our miners' wages.
Miners are tired of being told that if they do not heed their exhortations the employers will close the pits. The miners have co-operated for 25 years, and what has it got them? Pits have been closed by the hundred. The miners are immune to the threat that they cannot be paid a decent wage for the job but must accept depressed wages or the industry will lose markets. The price that they have already paid for their co-operation is that their wages have been depressed, markets have still gone and pits have closed. When we talk of coal price, in some areas coal goes to the power stations at £4 per ton. There is to-day a huge margin between the average that the Board receive for their coal and what the consumer has to pay. The price of coal to the consumer, which trebles in price from the pithead to them, is not the fault of the miner. If the Government really want to tackle

505
prices—and up to now I have seen nothing that they have done to keep them down; they went up 10 per cent. last year—then they ought to hold an inquiry into how a pithead ton of coal proceeds in the Board's accounts so that £5·84 becomes the fantastic figure of £15 to £20 per ton to the consumer. This, as I have said, cannot be blamed on the miner.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he not forgetting in his proposition about prices that the main pressure on coal prices is coming from competition with oil and other energy media?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, that does not help the argument. We recognise the economics of what is happening. What I have been trying to illustrate is what has been the result of these economic developments, and what is the position of coal when we study the accounts and are asking for increased wages. Natural gas is a competitor, and so is oil. We recognise that. So there is no argument in this.
Here is a field where, if the Government take action, they will have the full-hearted support of us all. We have been bombarded since 1957 with the statement that mining is a dying industry which must accept the inevitable development of nuclear power, North Sea gas, oil and the products of technology. Everyone knows that the miners are getting a raw deal. Now the Government and the nation must decide whether they want a coal industry, and what kind of industry they want; and if they do, whether to get the coal they are prepared to give a decent wage, one comparable with other industries. The men cannot accept a basic wage level for the industry which, in effect, compels workmen to seek overtime in order to raise their wages to an acceptable level.
The earnings survey for 1971 on mining reveals that 10 per cent. of adult workers have earnings of less than £20 per week—that is, before deductions and taxation—and many of these are only taking home £14 a week. Under the family income supplementary scheme run by the Government a family with one child and gross earnings of less than £18 a week is entitled to a supplementary
506
payment, and a family with two children can qualify if the gross earnings are less than £20 a week. In the coal industry there are in this category, earning less than £20 a week, more than 46.000 adult workers employed underground and 39,000 surface workers: that represents a total of 85,000 men. Many of these men have two children. I say, quite honestly and sincerely to the Government, that a breadwinner working in this industry, in dangerous, unpleasant conditions, cannot earn enough to support a family; and to have to rely on a Government subsidy through the family income supplementary scheme, after working for a week in the bowels of the earth, is really putting hard-working men in an undignified and humiliating position. Where is the industry outside the coal industry that pays its craftsmen so little? In mechanised mining of today you cannot work a pit without fitters and electricians. What are the wages of these other craftsmen? 5,800 craftsmen get a wage of £21·70, another group of 7,400 craftsmen get £23·62—and this is their gross weekly wage. Another 10.000 craftsmen get £22.75. These men had to serve their time to become craftsmen. Modern mines cannot work without them. yet their wages are well below those of outside industries, and if they could get other jobs they would leave. Many craftsmen do leave and some of our young men are emigrating.
I have a pay note here—this is just one: I could have brought many of them—for the week ended December 18 last year. This note that I hold is in respect of a man who went to the pit at fourteen, is now forty-nine years of age and has worked at the surface for thirty-five years. He is in a very responsible job; he is an engine driver who takes all the coal from the pit to the staithes to be loaded into the colliers, bring back the empties and handles all the supplies to the mine. And what is his wage? He is married and pays £3 a week rent. There are no savings because he cannot save on his pay. His earnings for five days are £15·31 and his total pay is £18·62 (his bonus shift for working five days is £3·63). After deductions he takes home £14·30. Is there a Member of the House of Lords who would do this? His wife has to take a part-time job to help out, and

507
there are thousands of my people in that situation to-day. There are thousands of underground men who are taking home only £14 per week. These men are not face workers but they work on the roads and on the conveyor belts, to keep them in good working order. There are others who work around the shafts. These men are as essential to coal production as are the face workers, yet the differential between them is immense, and something will have to be done to give these men more than the Government's policy allows.
Whilst denying a decent wage to miners, the Government are importing coal to the tune of £55 million—that was the figure up to last December: I do not know what the figure is now. They are paying £19 per ton to West Germany, over £20 per ton to Belgium. £33 per ton to South Africa and £10·39 per ton to Poland. This is really fantastic. We now import coal to this island, which is built on coal, at these prices: yet at the same time we say to the men in the pits, "You can get no more than 7 or 8 per cent. increase and only a 5 per cent. increase on your prices."
You cannot expect that men to-day will accept this kind of living standard. Even women and girls, such as typists who work in factories, take home more pay than some of the men at the pits. The men in the mines are embittered, and I would ask the Chairman of the National Coal Board to refrain from making stupid remarks that antagonise the men and make matters worse. The statement by the Chairman of the Board was one of the main causes of much of the difficulty we have faced in the coalfields on the question of safety work. In spite of this, I would appeal to my colleagues in the pits to respond to their national union's recommendation on the matter of the safety men.
This strike is now in its fourth week. The Board's hands are tied by Government policy. The strike is costing the miners, the Board and the nation a great deal of money, and there is much hardship to my people. The danger that costly machinery, chocks and conveyors will be lost increases day by day, as does the possibility of forcing closures on some of the existing collieries. And the miners realise all this. Men do not
508
face great sacrifices, such as they are facing now, for the fun of it. This strike is by men who have a wonderful record of co-operation with the Board, and their recompense is that their wages have been depressed in the way that I have tried to illustrate. Their battle to-day is to achieve a fair wage for the dirty and laborious work they do, and in order not to have to work for a week and then become applicants for family supplementary schemes. We have to remember that men still have some pride.
There is no desire on my part to make a difficult situation worse than it is, but unless the Government change the inflexible views that they have held up to now we face a long and bitter struggle. One thing is quite clear: the trade unions in the public sector are to have their wages determined by Government dictates where they are the employers, and the private sector is to be left free to negotiate freely with their men. There is the risk of grim strikes, poverty and the ruin not only of the mining industry but of other industries as well. This is not a policy for incomes but it represents discrimination against the men who are employed by the State. I am sure that that is a policy which we on this side of the House cannot accept.
What can be done? Are we to go on listening to sermons from the Government, or are the Government going to get the contestants round a table and talk flexibly with the miners in a real effort to understand why the men are bitter, what has incensed them and why they are prepared to face a long and bitter struggle for a decent standard of life? Surely between the men's demands and the Board's offer a settlement can be reached if the Government want a settlement. If it is the Government's intention to break the miners into submission—and I sincerely hope that this is not the case—and so give notice of similar action with other wage claims in the nationalised sector, the intention will not succeed. The Government will recreate the bitterness of the 1930s and will cause considerable harm to British industry as well as considerable misery and hardship to the working people of our nation. The men in the coalfields feel that their cause is right. They feel themselves subjected to a humiliating dictation by a Government who look as

509
though they could not care less about their grievances. The men consider that the Government's attitude towards them is identical with that of the 1926 Government.
This strike has resulted in the dove of peace and co-operation flying out of the window so far as the N.C.B. is concerned, and it has let in again the tiger of bitterness that we thought we had killed during the last 25 years. I ask the Government to change their ground, and I say to them that my Party stands four-square behind the miners and supports them in their efforts to get justice, and so does the trade union movement. In conclusion, 1 believe that the nation will not stand idly by to see the miners crucified as they were in 1926, nor watch men, women and children go through the terrible experiences of that time which were inflicted upon us by the Tory Government of the day. On that note, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, calling attention to the situation in the coal mining industry, expresses its disapproval of the Government's policy towards incomes which made inevitable industrial action by the miners.—(Lord Blytott.)
3.31 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I rise with the greatest diffidence to speak on this subject after the speech that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. As your Lordships will be well aware, I totally lack the personal and professional knowledge of the great mining industry which he so plainly possesses. The best I can do is to claim that I am at least the daughter of a mining engineer, and in my youth was brought up with a profound and enduring respect for the men who work underground and who at any time in the day's work, or the night's work, might face a fallen roof or fire in the pits.
I do not intend to dwell, as the noble Lord has dwelt, on the rights and wrongs of this particular mining dispute, but rather to concentrate on the second part of this Motion which:
"… expresses the disapproval of the Government's policy towards incomes which made inevitable industrial action by the miners."
Whether it made inevitable such action I do not know; but I do know that the Government's present policy on incomes
510
is totally inadequate, and that what is needed at this present time is a profound rethinking about the whole question of policy for incomes, and not, let me hasten to add, a return to the policy for incomes under which we suffered during the previous Administration. Of course, all Governments have a policy for incomes; they can no more manage without one than they can manage without a policy for foreign affairs. The question is, what sort of policy? On what should it be based, and how should it be operated? The present Government's policy, so far as we can understand, is based on the objective, with which I suppose most of us would be in sympathy, of attempting to control inflation and rising prices. But the way in which they are trying to do this, so far as we can see, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said, by leaning heavily on the nationalised industries, on those employees over whom they have direct or indirect control. It is not surprising that the unions representing those men, and the men themselves, bitterly resent what seems to be discrimination against one particular sector of the working population.
My Lords, what I should like to do this afternoon on this admittedly exceedingly difficult and important subject is to put forward a few short propositions about the way in which we may be thinking about this subject, and very tentative proposals as to the process that might be adopted. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—and it is very frequently suggested—that to deal with prices is the first step in dealing with the problem of incomes. I agree that any proposition to deal with incomes must also look at the problem of prices. I would at the same time assert that if prices are too vigorously held down it is not possible to get the return on capital on which a really healthy economy depends. There are, however, a number of particular cases in which the Government might with advantage look much more closely at what is happening in the field of prices. Particularly should this be done where a price increase is in an industry which is well protected by a tariff wall, or where the industry is in a monopoly or near-monopoly situation. I did not believe that controls in these two areas would make a substantial difference to the total problem,

511
but they would make a useful, if minor, contribution to its solution.
I turn to the major question of the kind of policy that we need to have towards incomes, not leaving prices out of account. The first point I want to make is that the question of a pay increase on an industry-wide scale in a large industry is obviously a matter which concerns and affects not only the employers and employees in that particular industry but also a wide range of the public as a whole, both as consumers and as members of the economy. There is a public interest to be protected in wage negotiations of this type. As your Lordships will have noticed, over the past year our industrial relations difficulties are once more arising most acutely over industry-wide negotiations, threatening industry-wide strikes and not, as over the previous 25 years, through short, sharp so-called "wild cat" strikes of a totally different order. The public have an interest because, of course, in the long run, the public pay. They have an interest in increasing costs; an interest in the increase in purchasing power which follows a settlement on an industry-wide basis. The public also have a concern in a somewhat different way. Men and women up and down the country outside the industry, directly affected by the negotiations, are apprehensive, worried, sometimes guilty, at the thought of the kind of reward that is being given to people doing essential, necessary and often very unpleasant work. The public want to believe that the kind of pay being given is a justified and fair settlement. In this way also the public have an interest in these settlements.
The second point I want to make is to challenge a proposition frequently put forward from this side of the House, in trade union negotiations and in Government discussions on these matters. It is often said that nothing must be done to disturb established differentials. I think that this is the greatest nonsense, and the sooner it is challenged and exploded the better. I would remind Members on this side of the House—indeed, on both sides —that it was none other than Sir Stafford Cripps, who, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, in a White Paper of 24 years ago on the subject of prices, wages and incomes, that the maintenance of differentials was not in itself the justi
512
fication for a wage increase. So long as we go on arguing that nothing can be done to alter existing differentials, we shall get deeper and deeper into the mire. Of course it is nonsense: differentials are in fact being altered all the time.
I took a look at what had happened to differentials in a two-and-a-half-year period in the 1960s. Of 18 industries in the standard industrial classification during that period, no fewer than 14 had changed their position in the league table. Differentials are and must be in a constant state of flux. Any other argument assumes that the particular relatives at which we happen to have arrived at any given moments in time are for some reason to be permanently frozen; and this is plainly nonsense. Whatever other arguments can be put forward for determining relative levels of pay, let us try to explode this out-of-date argument that nothing must be done to disturb differentials.
My third point is that the factors which go to determining what is at any moment in time an appropriate reward for a given type of work are diverse and are themselves in a continuous state of change. Market demands for particular products, shortages of particular kinds of skill, the value added to the end product by work of a particular kind—all these things are continuously changing. There are the technological developments which alter what should be paid at any given time. This means that in wages and in settlement of rates of pay and incomes generally there is no absolute answer and no finality. Such techniques as job evaluation can help to clarify within a limited area relativities which appear to have gone astray. But it is not a scientific instrument and does not give a final and lasting answer to the question, "How much am I worth, against how much are you worth?" This is at the heart of all questions of pay.
This I think means that attempts to lay down from the centre what it is appropriate that people should be paid, and then to enforce it, are bound to fail. I believe that we should have done a great deal better if we had stopped talking about norms, and I believe we should do a great deal better if we abandoned once and for all the idea that there is what somebody once called a "huggermugger of invisible experts at the centre"

513
who can work out what it is right we should all get and attempt to enforce it. I am sometimes, if I may say so without offence, astonished at the mixture of arrogance and naïvete which one finds in certain administrators and certain intellectuals in believing that they can work out these sums and then have them accepted. There are 25 million of us at work; there are, I believe, something over 40,000 different jobs. There is an unlimited opportunity for getting round what any centrally determined policy tries to impose. It is difficult enough to enforce minimum wage controls, but it is a hundred times more difficult to enforce maximum wage controls, for a very simple reason which seems always to be overlooked. If the minimum wage control is not kept there is an injured party, but if a maximum wage control is exceeded —if you offer more than you are legally required to do—then most of the time one says "Yes" and does not complain about it. It is this very simple fact which makes enforcement of maximum wage control, on which any centrally controlled policy must depend, virtually impossible.
What I am saying, my Lords, is this. Essentially, the fixing of pay and relativities in pay, which are always, and always will be, in a state of flux, is a matter for negotiation. It is not a matter for diktat and for central settlement, but a matter for negotiation between all the interested parties. And, as I said earlier, one vitally interested party in these industry-wide settlements is the public itself. Surely it would be better if, urging as we must that the Government should get together with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, instead of thinking so much about norms and figures, we thought about the process through which this tripartite negotiation should go on—tripartite between the employers, the unions and the Government.
I believe that in every major industrywide negotiation a representative of the Government speaking for the public interest should be there as a negotiating party, and that before a settlement is reached those three parties, working through all the problems that arise in any negotiation, should arrive at what to all three parties is a satisfactory settlement. This is the kind of point which has been put forward by my old mentor and
514
friend (whom many of your Lordships will know), Professor Hope-Brown; and the idea of introducing the third party representing the public interest into the national negotiation seems to me to be much the best hope of a way forward in settling wages on the industry-wide basis in a way which is satisfactory not only to the employers and unions but to ail the rest of us who also are involved. It may be very difficult to get this agreement and—I do not think it is asking too much that this should be done—strong measures should be taken to ensure that before negotiations break down at this level there should he resort to arbitration. If there is one matter on which I would criticise the miners in this dispute it is their refusal of arbitration, because if there is not to be a diktat from the centre then there can be as the only alternative a process of negotiation with a second stage of arbitration.
I, who am a profound voluntarist in this matter, would then suggest at the end of the arbitration process, when that stage has been gone through and when the problems have been worked over by all the interested parties, and when the public have had the opportunity to be really informed, as so often they are not, about the issues that are involved in a particular dispute—when this has been done, then if at the end of the day the parties concerned cannot accept the arbitration findings (and many of you may think this illogical) I would say then let them strike; let the situation fall apart. This, after all, was the way in which the Industrial Court operated from 1919 until the recent changes; and your Lordships will remember that it was only four times, I believe, in the 3.000-odd cases that went before the Industrial Court that the final arbitration findings were not accepted.
There is in this country in our industrial relations, thank God, a great constitutionalism. When we can revive confidence in the process of arbitration, there will once again be a great desire to accept what an arbitration board will find. It has been one of the tragedies of mistaken incomes policies of the past that, because, rightly or wrongly, the arbitration machinery was seen in the eyes of far too many people to be an instrument for Government policy to enforce the established norm, confidence

515
in arbitration has failed. If we could turn away from the idea of norms and turn instead to a new process for arbitration, bringing the Government and third parties in at all stages of the negotiation, I believe that we could revive confidence in arbitration. And then, I believe, we should to a very large extent re-establish the kind of procedures we had before, and should obtain, not final, satisfactory answers—there are no final answers—but a settlement with which we could live.

NORTHERN IRELAND: LONDONDERRY SHOOTINGS
3.50 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"The House will have heard with deep anxiety that a number of people were killed and injured in the course of disturbances in Londonderry yesterday.
"A march was organised in deliberate defiance of the legal order banning marches. The G.O.C. Northern Ireland has reported that at an appropriate point this march was stopped by the security forces and that those who were under the control of the organisers turned back. A large number of trouble-makers refused to accept the instructions of the march stewards and attacked the Army with stones, bottles, steel bars and canisters of CS. The Army met this assault with two water cannon, CS and rubber bullets only.
"The G.O.C. has further reported that when the Army advanced to make arrests among the trouble-makers they came under fire from a block of flats and other quarters. At this stage the members of the orderly, though illegal march, were no longer in the near vicinity. The Army returned the fire directed at them with aimed shots and inflicted a number of casualties on those who were attacking them with firearms and with bombs.
"In view of the statements which have been made which publicly dispute
516
this account the Government have decided that it is right to set up an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the march and the incidents leading up to the casualties which resulted. We are urgently considering the most appropriate form and membership of such an inquiry and I will make a further statement to the House as soon as possible."
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, even though it relates to perhaps one of the most tragic and shocking incidents that any of us can recall. I think my first remark must be to express our intense sympathy, which I am sure all noble Lords share, to the relatives of those who were killed and injured, and obviously I very much include the relatives of the soldiers who were wounded. It is a tragic coincidence that an officer who had been wounded some months ago died at about the same time.
I am sure that it would be quite inappropriate and inopportune for us to attempt to pass any judgment to-day. As the Government Statement makes clear, there are a number of pretty detailed reports in the Press and elsewhere which dispute some of the Statement. Since in any case we are to have a debate on Wednesday, and we are in the middle of a very important debate to-day, it would seem to me on two grounds inappropriate to attempt to press for any answers to-day. We and the House very much welcome the Inquiry. It is vital—and I am sure the Government will seek to achieve this—that it should be seen to be impartial, to establish exactly what did happen. I believe that speed is rather important, and, bearing in mind that the Scarman Inquiry is still not complete, I am wondering whether Lord Justice Scarman, who knows the situation well, might be asked to drop his other Inquiry and try to carry through this one quickly. However, that is a matter for the Government; I do not ask them to decide to-day.
We shall also want to know at some stage—and again I do not ask for an answer now—whether there was any particular policy decision which led to the troops, as I understand it, entering the Bogside, and how any such decision came to be taken. However, these are

517
questions which the Inquiry will reveal. I am sure that, apart from expressing our deep anxiety and making the few points that I have made, it is better to leave the matter there to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I should like to answer one question which he put, and that is whether there was any policy decision about troops entering the Bogside. This, of course, was an illegal march and it was up to the security forces to stop it at some point, and they decided to stop it where they did. In the event, they were attacked by these disorderly elements and they felt it necessary to go in and arrest some of them, and that is where the trouble took place. The noble Lord's other remarks will be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to associate my noble friends on these Benches with the sympathy expressed to the injured and the relatives of those killed and injured in all parts of the dispute, a sympathy ably expressed by Lord Shackleton and which I should have thought might well have been included in the Statement by the Home Secretary. It is important that there should be an Inquiry immediately and we very much welcome this. It is equally important that the Inquiry should be of such a nature that it is not open to any charges of partiality or whitewashing, and we will look forward with great interest and care to see what the composition and nature of the Inquiry will be.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I answer one thing the noble Lord said? He took the Government and the Home Secretary to task for not having said something about those wounded and killed. I must say that it is my information that some of those who were killed were some of the I.R.A. men who were shooting at the Army. It is very tragic that that should have happened and I am sorry indeed that they should have been so misguided as to do so, and I am very sorry indeed for their relatives.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, as one who comes from Northern Ireland, I should like to express very profound disquiet at these terrible happenings in
518
Londonderry last night and also to express my sympathy with the relations of those who were killed and wounded. May I ask my noble friend if he has any idea as to what the civilian casualties were in these disturbances?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the figures have been published in the papers, which so far as I know are accurate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who was in Londonderry yesterday, may I welcome the decision to have an independent Inquiry. May I ask the Minister this question? Will he see that at that independent Inquiry the widest possible invitation is given to witnesses? Is he aware that the situation yesterday was one of extraordinary chaos; that not only the Secretary but observers from the National Council of Civil Liberties were there; that while I did not take part in the march but did attempt to take part in a public meeting, with the knowledge of the Home Office? One could see only a part of what occurred, but those of us who were there were deeply concerned about what happened, and one had the unique experience at a public orderly meeting of having to fall on the ground because there was shooting over us. When those circumstances arise, is it not desirable that this Inquiry should include all of those who are able to give any evidence in the matter?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, everybody in the House will be very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was unharmed, but I do not accept for one moment that anybody was shooting at him.
LORD BROCKWAY: No, My Lords, I did not suggest it; I did not suggest that for a moment. I do not think that the Army fired at an orderly public meeting. All I am saying is that firing did take place over that meeting, and because of that I, and the others, at an ordinary peaceful meeting which was legal, had to fall on the ground in order to avoid the bullets that were fired.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has cleared up that matter, because I think that left as it was there might have been a misunderstanding. With regard to the

519
rest of what he said, of course in this sort of situation there is always considerable confusion; but I would ask your Lordships to remember that this march was illegal and was known by those who organised it to be illegal. Indeed, they were warned on Saturday morning of this by Army Headquarters, Northern Ireland, who emphasised the illegality of the march and the responsibility which rested on the organisers for any violence which resulted as a result of that march. I think it a very great pity that this march took place.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend whether it would be possible for the Government to urge the Press, in reporting these incidents, to exercise the very greatest restraint? On my way up here this morning, I happened to see a headline which said, "The Army attacks Bogside. Thirteen civilians killed" While that headline does not state anything that did not actually happen, it seems to imply that the Army made a deliberate attack without having been fired on themselves.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have enough trouble without being responsible for the Press.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no doubt inadvertently, the noble Lord did not answer what I thought was the main point of my noble friend's question; namely, about those who would be able to give evidence.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. This is one of the matters about which we are now in urgent consultation, as to the terms of reference and composition of the Inquiry.

COAL INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT INCOMES POLICY
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very conscious in this debate of the danger of perhaps saying something inadvertently which might, in some way, prejudice the ability of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment to help the parties towards a settle
520
ment. I therefore, and quite deliberately, do not wish to become too closely involved in discussing some of the specific controversial issues which are involved in this dispute. Rather, since the terms of the noble Lord's Motion are directed mainly at the more general question of the Government's policy towards incomes, it is mainly to this larger question that I shall address myself.
If I may say so by way of preface, I should like to express my appreciation of the moderation which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have displayed in opening this debate, and my recognition of the qualities, as I think the noble Baroness put it, of "personal and professional knowledge" which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, brings to bear on this matter. Nevertheless, I recognise the strong feelings which are inevitably aroused in a national coal strike. I also wish to associate myself with what my right honourable friend Mr. Robert Carr—a Secretary of State whom I think both sides of your Lordships' House would hold to be not only firm but also fair—has said about our mining community. The Government are not seeking a showdown with the miners. The last thing we have in mind, even if it were possible, is to drive them into some form of forced submission. The noble Lord. Lord Blyton, asked for some form of assurance on this, and that I can gladly and willingly give to him.
We recognise that there is in many quarters in this country and for many reasons a deep sympathy with the mining community. As an industrial community, deeply dependent on energy, we recognise the debt we owe to those who provide the energy without which our industry and our whole economy would be paralysed. Equally, those who provide that energy must be conscious of their obligations towards the larger community. What we as a Government are therefore concerned about—and this I think would apply to any Government—is to help in whatever ways we can towards a settlement which is both just to the miners and to the National Coal Board with its obligations, and to the community as a whole. We accept that the settlement for the miners must be a fair one; but equally it must be a reasonable one, taking account of the interests of the community—and not

521
least the miners themselves—in curbing inflation.
My Lords, this brings me to the underlying theme of the noble Lord's Motion —the Government's policy towards incomes. Let me go back for a moment. When we took office in June, 1970. we inherited a wage/cost inflation unparalleled in peace-time for half a century. In their last six months of office the Government of noble Lords opposite nominally operated a statutory incomes policy with a norm of 2½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. for wage settlements. In fact, the situation had become so out of control from the autumn of 1969 onwards that by mid-1970—in the run-up to the General Election—the wage settlement speedometer was hovering around 10 per cent. and tending to accelerate. Earnings were increasing by 12 per cent.—six times as fast as productivity—a clear pointer to accelerating price increases in the future. Wage claims were plainly becoming increasingly unrealistic, and a rising tide of inflationary expectations was flowing in.
What policies should we, and could we, have adopted then and since to tackle the wage cost inflation which was rampant when we took office? We could of course have re-introduced a statutory policy. But the very problems we found indicated the failure of statutory policies, with their whole elaborate paraphernalia of norms and criteria. These had been operated by our predecessors through various stages of freeze, severe restraint, less severe restraint and so on since 1966. I would concede that the statutory policies may have made some impact initially. But at the end of four years they had collapsed under the pressures which had built up under them. In my view it would have been absurd for us to have repeated the mistakes and failures of our predecessors in this respect.
Second, we could have adopted a voluntary incomes policy worked out in agreement with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. In theory there is much to be said for a voluntary policy—a policy under which all parties agree on a common line towards the determination of incomes in the interests of fairness for the groups concerned and in the interest of the community in keeping prices down. Indeed Ministers
522
have made it clear on a number of occasions—I have made it clear myself speaking from this Dispatch Box—that we should be glad to consider any proposals for voluntary policies which the T.U.C. or C.B.I. or other bodies might wish to make.
But, my Lords, it was crystal clear in June, 1970 that it would have been impossible to work out an agreed voluntary policy which would have made a sufficient impact at sufficient speed on the accelerating wage inflation then in progress. More important, for a voluntary policy to succeed there must be "volunteers"—all unions and employers must agree to play to the rules of the game and be seen to play to the rules, or the policy is bound to fail. Having been through five years or more of statutory and voluntary incomes policies, there was at that time little or no disposition on the part of employers or unions to embark on a voluntary policy. But let me repeat that we have never ruled out a voluntary incomes policy. Our position remains that we should be glad to consider any proposals from the parties concerned for such a policy. And we do of course keep in touch on a regular basis wth the T.U.C. and C.B.I. on these matters at meetings of the National Economic Development Council and indeed elsewhere.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is he saying that he is willing to entertain proposals for a voluntary incomes policy, despite the powerful arguments which he is giving as to why it will not work? If he still believes this, why did the Government reject out of hand the suggestions of the General Secretary of the T.U.C. in this respect, which were treated with contempt by the Chancellor?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thought I was making it clear—and I think nobody would deny this—that in the early stages, in June, 1970, the chances of a voluntary policy being adopted by both sides of industry were virtually zero. I was making it absolutely clear, however, that we did not rule out, and we do not rule out, the possibility of exploring what can be done along these lines at this time or later, and that if either the C.B.I., the T.U.C. or anybody

523
else wish to make proposals in this regard, we shall of course look at them very carefully.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Earl? Did he and the Government, by Divine divination, foresee a complete breakdown between the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and did they abolish the Prices and Incomes Board as a result of this divination?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not credit myself with Divine powers. But perhaps I may go on.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, before the noble Earl goes on, may I ask this question—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps we can get on. I have already given way.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sorry, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to answer the question that my noble friend Lord Shackleton put to him. If the Government have this willingness to receive initiatives from the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. or from other quarters, why did they, not on one occasion but on two occasions, reject and snub the T.U.C. when they put forward constructive proposals?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I rest on what I have said. I have made clear our willingness to receive representations, and I should have thought that we could let the matter rest there for the time being.
A third approach to the inflation which we inherited would have been to take no action directly on pay but to cut back on demand. We rejected—and rightly rejected—this course. It was quite clear that inflation in 1970 was what economists describe as "wage/cost" inflation, not "demand/pull" inflation; that the rising levels of wage settlements and unemployment were increasing simultaneously. So, far from tackling wage/cost inflation by reducing demand, we have carried out the largest reflation of demand since the war. The details are known to your Lordships and I shall not go into them, but they are designed to stimulate the economy over the years 1971–72 to 1974–75. This is our answer to those who claim, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, was at least half suggesting, that we have "created" un-
524
employment to bring down wage settlements. It has never been any part of our approach to tackling this great national problem of inflation.
The policy we decided to pursue, and which has been followed consistently since June, 1970, has been to urge employers and unions, in the public and private sectors alike, to bring down progressively and substantially the level of wage settlements to more realistic levels. We have urged employers and unions to reach fair and reasonable settlements, but settlements which recognise the need to return to more moderate levels closer to the increase in national productivity. The policy has been assisted by the Government's reflationary measures. It has also been greatly aided by the C.B.I.'s initiative on prices restraint in July last year, which the T.U.C. said was bound to be taken into account in the levels of pay settlements. My Lords, this is not a negative policy, nor is it directed against the unions. We do not seek to bring down the level of money wage settlements just for the sake of it. Our aims—which we share with the unions and employers—are: to provide the basis for faster growth without inflation; to achieve rising levels of employment; and to create the conditions for a faster and, sustained growth of real earnings on which living standards depend, not inflated money incomes which are inevitably and quickly eaten away by rising prices.
A reduction in the level of money wage settlements is necessary for all these aims. It is now all too evident that the very high pay settlements of 1969 and 1970 were illusory. They could not, and did not, lead to a permanent increase in real earnings. Because they far outstripped the possible increase in productivity, they produced the excessive rise in prices in the first half of last year, and they led also, following years of economic stagnation in this country, through their effect on company costs, to thousands of workers being made redundant. It should now be obvious to all that wage/cost inflation is in the interest of no one. It is not even in the long-term interest of those who are powerful enough to bludgeon their way to high settlements; much less is it in the interests of those who are less powerful or less fortunate—those living on fixed incomes or in weak bargaining positions. That is why we are

525
determined to set our course by the same star—to continue to aim at bringing down the level of settlements, whatever the temporary difficulties and transient unpopularity it may cause us. But I would not claim for one moment that all the processes and all the machinery are perfect in this respect. I listened very carefully, and was struck by some of the suggestions which the noble Baroness made in a notably constructive speech, and I can tell her that these will be carefully examined.
I wish to make it clear to noble Lords who seek to argue otherwise, that this policy applies equally to the public and private sectors. We have urged employers and unions in both sectors to secure a progressive and substantial reduction in the level of settlements. Private sector employers, as well as public sector employers, are under pressure to bring down the levels of pay settlements. The companies which are supporting the C.B.I. prices initiative are naturally under pressure to keep down the increase in their labour costs and achieve moderate pay settlements. The C.B.I. pointed out to their members that it was a corollary of the prices proposal that employers in both the public and private sectors maintained and strengthened the policy of resisting excessive pay settlements as firmly as possible. I would therefore point out to those who urge the contrary, that de-escalation in pay settlements is necessary in private and public sectors alike, and that our policy is, in fact, directed at both sectors. That is why, as we continue and intensify the policy to build on what has been achieved so far, we are asking all concerned with pay determination, whether in the public or private sectors—employers and unions, those conducting independent pay reviews and inquiries, arbitrators and wages boards and councils—to consider the interest of the whole community in curbing inflation and to achieve a much more moderate level of pay settlements.
My Lords, we are not proposing to persist in our present policies "just for the heck of it". We propose to do so because we believe in reinforcing success. A year ago settlements of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. were common; to-day many settlements in the public and private sectors are being made in the range 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. During
526
1971, the hourly wage rate index increased by 10·2 per cent.—high enough in all conscience, but down when compared with 13·8 per cent. in 1970. And the index of average earnings increased by 7·9 per cent in the first 11 months of 1971, compared with 12·4 per cent. in the first 11 months of 1970. The percentage increase in average earnings shows the same trend. The increase in average earnings in November, 1971, over the previous 12 months was 9 per cent.—again, high enough in all conscience: but this is the first time the figure has been in single figures since January, 1970. These figures are still, of course, far too high in relation to the growth of national productivity which we are achieving, and in relation to the performance of many of our competitors abroad. But they indicate, beyond dispute, that the acceleration of wage cost inflation in 1969 and 1970 has been reversed.
We are now beginning to see the benefits. The rate of increase in prices has been falling sharply. In the first half of 1971 retail prices (excluding seasonal food) were increasing at an annual rate of about 11 per cent.; in the second half of 1971 they were increasing at an annual rate of around 5¾ per cent. And wholesale prices, which increased by 5 per cent. in the first half of 1971, increased by only 1 per cent. in the second half. These figures demonstrate that our policies have enabled us to begin the break-out from the vicious spiral of escalating wages and prices. We now have a much more favourable environment for the continued reduction in the level of settlements to more realistic levels. It should now be easier for all concerned to achieve more moderate pay settlements and greater price stability.
Indeed, my Lords, the current economic prospects are unusually encouraging for a slower increase in prices, for a faster growth of real earnings, for the growth in employment which we all desire—above all, for a renewal of growth—for that economic resurgence which has eluded us this past decade or more. We now have a real opportunity to achieve the rapid sustained expansion that we need. Profits are beginning to recover as the economy begins to pick up. The revival in demand, brought about by our measures, provides hope for a return of the business confidence and

527
increased investment which we have to achieve. There is less reason now to fear a balance of payments constraint; though this is a tiger always ready to enter our doors. There is unused capacity, waiting to be brought into productive use. And ahead—pace the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—lies the prospect of a European market of more than 250 million people. The opportunity for rapid and soundly based economic growth is therefore ready to be seized, if—and only if—we can avoid a resurgence of inflationary pressure, brought about by wage increases far in excess of increases in productivity. My Lords, the Government feel—and I personally am convinced—that it would be a tragedy if, at this point, we were to relax on the wages front and put at risk once again all this chance of recovery, this opportunity for resurgence.
It is against this backcloth that the dispute between the N.C.B. and the Union should be set. The National Coal Board genuinely believes that the offer it has made is the highest possible one that it could have made if it is to keep down price increases; and what the Government's critics seem to be suggesting is that the Government should intervene and press the N.C.B. to raise its offer to a more inflationary level, and beyond the level which in its own judgment it thinks it can afford to pay, on the grounds that the miners are a special case. Well, my Lords, at whose expense should this be? Should it be the coal users? The workers in weaker bargaining positions, most of them lower paid? Or higher-paid workers, who have to accept a low average wage increase? Or is inflation to be allowed to proceed unabated, with prices rising more sharply and reducing the living standard of those dependent on fixed incomes who arc often in a more exposed position?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? I am extremely grateful to him for giving way. We have read figures in the newspapers to the effect that the Coal Board is going to suffer losses of perhaps £100 million by the end of this week, and of course more if the dispute goes on. Would the noble Lord equate this amount with the amount that the Coal Board would have to fork out in increased wages
528
if it made a slightly improved offer of, say, 11 per cent.?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I am surprised to hear an offer increased from. I think, 7·9 per cent. to 11 per cent. characterised as "slightly improved". I am afraid that I cannot do in my head the sum which the noble Earl asked me to do. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who will be replying, will no doubt have a computer at his disposal, and I am sure that he will deal with that point.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that when one talks about percentages the difference between 7½ per cent. and 11 per cent. can be very small when related to a very low wage?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will come again to the question of wages. I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time at the start of a debate in which there are a great many speakers. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be dealing in greater detail with this question of relative wages when he winds up. If I may move on, I was saying that some group would have to pay for the special treatment which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is calling for. I think that those who argue this should say which group should suffer.
It is not for me or for the Government to take sides in this matter, but I must point out that the N.C.B.'s final offer was already at a fair level compared with other recent pay settlements in both the public and also the private sector. The 7·9 per cent. offer was above the settlements in respect of gas and water achieved only last week. It is already well in excess of the growth of national productivity and it offers, or it offered, with last year's pay settlement, an increase in miners' pay on average of about one-fifth; that is, 20 per cent. That is no small figure in two years and more than covers the cost of living increase in that period—which happens to be from October, 1969, to October. 1971—of 17·4 per cent. And this at a time when there is a real prospect, as I hope I have demonstrated, of a genuine reduction in the rate of increase in prices.
My Lords, there has been discussion in the Press and on television, and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, mentioned it

529
in his speech, about the position of miners in the "wages league table" over the years. I know that these differentials are very important, but I question whether this is a sensible way to look at pay relativities. In any event, the N.C.B. has shown that in a league table of minimum rates its final offer would have taken the miners from sixteenth place to sixth place. If any noble Lord opposite, or any of my noble friends, feel that this is not enough, I think they owe it to the House to say what they think would be enough and at whose expense it should be.
To conclude what I wish to say in this part of my speech, we do not accept that our policy towards incomes made industrial action by the Union inevitable, as Lord Blyton's Motion claims. On the contrary, we believe that our policy is realistic and fair and has played a decisive part in curbing wage/cost inflation, and provides us with the opportunity to embark on faster and sustained growth, with greater price stability and rising employment. We believe sincerely that these objectives are in the interests of the community as a whole, and not least the miners; and that we must continue to seek to bring down the level of wage settlements to ensure that we do not put at risk the encouraging prospects for growth which are now before us.
My Lords, I have cast my remarks, as I said, against the framework of our overall incomes policy, and against the backdrop of what we judge to be the national interest. But we must also bear in mind the damage which this strike, if it is continued, can do to the prospects of the coal industry. Further cost increases and further pressures on prices already seem almost inevitable. This means that the National Coal Board's finances will deteriorate. Again, the strike will also probably mean more pit closures. For example, the Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board has said that 10 per cent. of coal faces may have to close through lack of maintenance. There is at risk, I think, something like £100 million worth of machinery underground; and, if I may, I should like to express my appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said about maintenance in this particular context.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Earl excuse me one moment? He mentioned the figure of machinery at risk in the pits as being £100 million worth. It is much more than that.
EARL JELLICOE: I will, of course, my Lords, accept that from the noble Lord, with his special knowledge. It reinforces the danger to which the community is exposed. I will accept what the noble Lord says, speaking with his very special knowledge in this respect.
Again, there is the danger that consumers will lose confidence in coal. For the third consecutive year industrial action in the coal field has threatened supplies, and the present complete stoppage of supplies could be the last straw for some consumers. All these effects can lead in one direction, and one direction only— a further switch away from coal. There are the reserves of gas and oil in the North Sea; there are the developments with nuclear power. Coal, in fact, is now under strong competitive pressure. Only 20 years ago it supplied 90 per cent. of our energy needs; now it supplies something like 45 per cent. My Lords, there is no threat implicit in my remarks here; these are the facts. However, we know that the energy situation is a fluctuating one; we know it can change rapidly, and it is not yet too late for the industry to find once more the impetus to achieve the increases in productivity which it needs in order to stabilise its level of sales.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, in (if I may so term it) a moving passage in his speech, talked about the pit closures and the modernisation which took place in the decade of the 1960s. They were in fact remarkable: a halving of manpower and an increase in productivity of the order of over 50 per cent. This immense industrial transformation, this enormous change in the industry, was carried out without the industry falling apart; and that, in my view, is a monument, and a lasting one, to both the National Coal Board and to the National Union of Mineworkers. They succeeded in producing a technically advanced industry, better able to compete with the other fuels. It would be a great pity (I put it no higher than that) and not only the miners but the nation as a whole would

531
be the losers, if this great constructive work of the 'sixties, terribly difficult but yet achieved, was eroded and put at risk in the 'seventies by continuing industrial action. That is one reason, my Lords, why we must all hope for an early end to the present dispute and a quick resumption within the industry, within the coalfields, of that fruitful atmosphere of good will and co-operation between management and labour which certainly existed at least in the earlier part of that decade.
My Lords, I would not wish in any wise to minimise what is at stake at present. This strike certainly threatens the energy supplies of our nation; it is certainly putting many consumers, including old people, to great and increasing discomfort, to put it no higher; and its continuance threatens the future of a great industry. Unless a settlement can be achieved on terms which are not only fair for the miners but fair for the community as a whole—and this is the other side of the picture—the prospect of economic recovery, of national economic recovery, which is bright at the present time, could be blighted. I think all I should like to say in conclusion is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State stands ready to help in any way he can to achieve a fair and honourable settlement—fair for the miners, fair for the consumers and fair, not least, for our community as a whole. My Lords, I should like to express the wish that, on whatever side of the political fence we may come down, this debate will be conducted (as I think it has certainly commenced) in such a way as in no wise to impair the chances of that settlement—a settlement fair to all the parties concerned—which I am quite certain we all of us, again on whichever side of the political fence we come down, so ardently desire.

RHODESIA: MR. SMITH AND PROPOSED VISIT BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
4.46 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like now, if I may, to repeat a Statement which has been made by my
532
right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place. This is the Statement:
"As the House will be aware, I have been in touch with Mr. Smith about arrangements for Members of Parliament to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission. I have made clear in this House my view that it is wrong for us to transfer our political differences to Rhodesia or for British political Parties to propagate their views on the proposals for a settlement in that country while the Test of Acceptability is being conducted. Nevertheless, the Government accept that this House might wish to observe the operation of the Pearce Commission and I have expressed my view that an all-Party delegation would be the most appropriate arrangement.
"The Labour Party, for their part, have preferred to propose a single Party delegation, representing the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. If this could be arranged, they were also prepared to take part in the all-Party delegation. At their request, therefore, I forwarded a proposal on their behalf to Mr. Smith. The Liberal Party made a similar request and I took similar action.
"In his reply Mr Smith has said that he is prepared to receive a limited number of individual M.P.s or groups of M.P.s, provided they go in the capacity of observers of the Pearce Commission's work and not to propagate support for or objection to the terms of the settlement. He has added that he would not be prepared to admit persons who were on record as having aided or encouraged terrorist activities there.
"After consulting the right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Leeds, East, and the honourable Gentleman, the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, I was able to assure Mr. Smith that both the Labour and Liberal Party delegations were ready to undertake that they would not engage in any propaganda while in Rhodesia. I have now received a message from Mr. Smith, and he has made the substance of it public, declining to admit the Labour and Liberal delegations as constituted, on the grounds

533
that some of the proposed Members have encouraged or actively supported terrorist movements in Africa.
"I am satisfied that the legitimate purpose of observing on behalf of this House the operation of the Pearce Commission can be satisfactorily fulfilled by an all-Party delegation. Indeed a privately-organised bi-Party delegation has just been in Rhodesia for this purpose. The all-Party delegation can be pursued through the usual channels."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement, but I am bound to say that we on this side of the House have very grave reservations about it. Do Her Majesty's Government now accept that the leader of an illegal régime should discriminate between Members of Parliament who wish to observe the carrying out of British obligations? The Statement referred to terrorists and to people who supported them. Mr. Smith, according to Press reports, referred to resolutions of the Labour Party Conference. Is the noble Marquess aware that I have in my hand the texts of the relevant resolutions since U.D.I., and that there is no reference in them, not merely to terrorist activities, of course, but even to supporting African nationalist movements in Rhodesia? Mr. Smith is now attempting to dictate which public figures, at a perfectly legitimate time, should come to his country as observers. What guarantees have we of what he will do when the Pearce Commission comes home?
Finally, my Lords, we on this side of the House feel that this Statement underlines all our misgivings about Mr. Smith's intentions and his assurances, and (I say this with great sadness) it underlines what we feel about the weakness of the Foreign Secretary in upholding the honour and responsibility of British Members of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for thanking me for repeating the Statement, I am sorry she has taken the line that she has done. As I am sure the House is aware, it is a very distressing
534
situation. Of course, it has always been the case that the régime in Rhodesia has been in a position to refuse or allow entry to people wishing to come into that country. It is also true, as I think the Statement pointed out, that some Members of Parliament—two, I think, from the Party opposite—have been permitted to enter the country. Nevertheless, this is a situation which we all regret. I myself would hope that Mr. Smith may perhaps think better of his decision. We all feel that the British Parliament has a great interest in seeing that the work of the Pearce Commission is carried out fairly and properly, and I am glad to think that at any rate some Members of another place have been allowed to enter the country for that purpose.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that this is much more than a "distressing situation", as he puts it. The whole behaviour of Mr. Smith since this disgraceful settlement was signed is encouraging people in this country to believe now, whatever they many have believed in the past, that the only way in which a solution can ever be reached in that territory is to support the freedom fighters. In preventing visits by Members of another place to observe the work of the Pearce Commission because, he alleges, at some time in the past they had given encouragement to terrorists activities, Mr. Smith is making, it much more difficult not only for the people of Rhodesia to accept a settlement but for Parliament to accept the terms of the expression of opinion by Lord Pearce when he comes back to this country. Is not this an extremely serious matter? Will the noble Marquess represent to his right honourable friend that he should say to Mr. Smith, in the strongest possible terms, that this disgraceful and outrageous interference with the prerogative of this Parliament is something with which we will not put up.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I undertake to pass on to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's remarks. I agree with him in that I think Mr. Smith, by his action in this respect, has made things very much more difficult in a great many other respects.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, if it is decided to send an all-Party delegation to Rhodesia, who

535
will be responsible for choosing it? Will it be the Foreign Office? In that case, if in a list of names for an all-Party delegation recommended by the Labour Party and by the Liberal Party there were included those of Mr. Healey and Mr. Steel, would they be acceptable to Mr. Smith?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot answer that question but I should think it unlikely that they would be acceptable. In answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that an all-Party delegation would be chosen, as is normal, through the usual channels. I cannot answer categorically whether Mr. Smith would accept any particular Member. I cannot say whether the all-Party delegation proposal will materialise, but certainly my hope, and that of my right honourable friend, is that it will.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the obviously deep embarrassment of the noble Marquess shows that he feels a good deal more strongly on this than does his right honourable friend. His right honourable friend may be a saint to many noble Lords opposite—and we have always had a high regard for him —but it is quite intolerable that Mr. Healey should not be allowed to go to Rhodesia. What steps have her Majesty's Government taken to combat the charge that the Labour Party has encouraged or supported terrorist movements? This matter affects not just a Party but, surely, the honour of Parliament. Will the noble Marquess indicate our very strong feelings and deep concern about the failure of the Foreign Secretary?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I certainly undertake to pass to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's remarks. I do not think the noble Lord is quite right in ascribing to me any feelings on this matter that are deeper than those of my right honourable friend. He, I know, is extremely concerned and worried about it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is this not an ignominious surrender of the rights of our Parliament? Is it not the case that Mr. Ian Smith is the head of an illegal government established in rebellion against the United Kingdom? Are we really to accept the position that
536
he has the right to decide what representatives from our Parliament should go to Rhodesia? Is the Minister aware—and I sympathise with his embarrassment—that it is an appalling position for any member of a Government to have to accept the fact that an illegal representative of a colony which has rebelled against us should have this power? Will Her Majesty's Government see that representatives from our Parliament and our Members of Parliament have the right to go to Southern Rhodesia without any dictatorship from this illegal Prime Minister?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, if I am grateful for anything, it is for the noble Lord's sympathy in this matter. Of course I will undertake to pass on his views and those of the House. I agree that it is a serious matter. On the other hand, we want to see so far as possible that the Pearce Commission can get on with their work and come back home with their opinion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that noble Lords on the other side of the House are being quite unreasonable and unfair to him? Is he not aware that during the years of office of the Labour Government they showed themselves quite unable to exercise any control at all over Mr. Smith? Is my noble friend aware that the whole world knows that we in this country can do little or nothing to influence how Mr. Smith rules in his country? Is lie aware that those who sit on this side of the House feel that the agreement reached by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary gives us a last chance to be able to do something worth while for the peoples of Rhodesia, and particularly the Africans? Is my noble friend aware that he has warm support from noble Lords on this side of the House?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. It is true that we regard the proposed settlement as something which could lead to justice for all the peoples in Rhodesia. That is why we strongly hope that it will prove to be acceptable.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that

537
all of us on this side of the House accept the fact that he and the Secretary of State did their best in a difficult situation? On the other hand, it is a rare thing for Parliamentarians delegated by their Parties in Parliament to be refused entry into another country. Nevertheless, Parliamentarians probably in both Houses are very anxious to survey the situation themselves and to bring back their impressions. Will my noble friend make it abundantly clear to Mr. Smith, through the Secretary of State, that he would be advised, both in his own interest and in that of the coloured people and of the whites in Rhodesia, to accept an all-Party delegation and the nominees of their respective Parties?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly undertake to pass on that request.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that, while I endorse 100 per cent. what the noble Lord opposite has just said, some of us feel sad about this matter? We should like to talk about it in depth, but it would be unfair on a day like this when internally we have a vital problem about one of the most important industries in our country. May I therefore ask that some opportunity should be given outside this important debate to discuss this subject, after a little consideration, in depth; otherwise we shall be here until one o'clock to-morrow morning. I do not want to pass derogatory remarks about the noble Marquess whose duty it was to make this Statement; nevertheless, there must be many noble Lords on these Benches who see this "cocking a snook" as being similar to something that happened in Poland many years ago when a minor dictator started a vital flare-up in Europe. We do not want that kind of flare-up in Africa.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may respond to the noble Lord's invitation. I feel that many noble Lords will have sympathy with what was implicit in his remarks; that this is a matter which is of deep concern to both Houses of Parliament; and of course we should be willing, through the usual channels, to see whether we could provide time to pursue it further, if that were the general wish. But in view of the fact that we are engaged in an im-
538
portant debate on an important dispute affecting a vitally important industry, I think it would be the general wish of the House as a whole that we should now get on with that debate.

COAL INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT INCOMES POLICY
4.53 p.m.
Debate further resumed.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, the noble Earl who spoke to the House on the subject of our main debate this afternoon is invariably a persuasive speaker, but I hope he will not take it amiss if I say that there are many noble Lords on both sides of the House who will feel that he did not deal with the anxieties, the problems and the very serious questions to which this debate gives rise. They were raised in the impressive and moving speech made by my noble friend Lord Blyton, every word of which I fully and wholeheartedly endorse. But of course one cannot separate the situation of the coalmining industry, upon which he principally concentrated his speech, from the general background of the incomes policy which the Government have been following.
If I may say so, the noble Earl gave us what were already rather familiar arguments in favour of that policy, and he referred to the desire of the Government to keep a check upon the rise in prices. In such a policy there is of course a great deal of common ground, but the Government have chosen quite consistently throughout to put the main emphasis of this policy upon one particular way of trying to achieve the objective; that is, to exercise an influence upon the growth of wages. In seeking to keep down wages and in describing what was being done in that regard, the noble Earl did not really refer to other parts of the Government's policy which have borne upon this: for instance, the way in which, in a number of fields, they have allowed prices to rise; the way in which they deliberately deprived themselves of instruments which might be used for consumer protection; the ways in which they have lightened very substantially direct taxation and at the same time have diminished the availability or raised the charge for social benefits and taken a number of steps which have

539
increased the normal household expenditure for the vast mass of the population—an increase in household expenditure to which in fact the cuts in indirect taxation have constituted very little offset.
They have also sought to exert their influence, as the noble Earl I think quite candidly said, by seeking to operate primarily in the public sector. I do not deny that the exhortations of the Government are addressed to the public sector and the private sector alike, but there is a widespread belief that in the case of the public sector the Government go a great deal further than exhortation; and while they seek to avoid responsibility for the consequences of the pressures which they are exerting in the public sector I think it is quite disingenuous of the Government to pretend that they are not intervening in negotiations in the nationalised industries. The impression that one gets is that in fact they are intervening continuously and in detail, and I invite the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate to clear up this matter and to give us, if he is able to do so, a categorical assurance that there is no detailed intervention by the machinery of government in the wage negotiations in the public sector of industry. My own view is that it may be right or it may be wrong for the Government to exercise an influence of this sort; but whether right or wrong I believe the Government should be quite candid with the public and with Parliament about what precisely they are doing. Indeed the impression that one gets is that this policy is producing serious results, often robbing the nationalised industries of the power to do things which even on a strict commercial judgment they would prudently do if they were a private concern.
We are to-day concentrating our attention primarily upon the situation in the coal mining industry, because it illustrates in a particularly clear and unmistakable way the consequences of the policy which the Government have chosen to follow. This is a field in which the co-operation and restraint of the miners is universally recognised. They have co-operated in the reorganisation of the industry and they have co-operated in raising productivity, as my noble friend pointed out with such force and in such detail. In return it is also common ground
540
and it is also universally accepted that even the best offer which the Coal Board made—the offer which, as has been pointed out, has now been withdrawn—fell substantially short of covering the rise in the cost of living since the last settlement.
The argument which is put forward in justification is that there must be taken into account as well the increases secured by negotiation twelve months ago. In other words, the modest increases in real living standards which were secured twelve months ago are to be wiped out, or virtually wiped out, if the present offer were to be accepted or if the best offer, now withdrawn, were to be accepted. My calculation is that if the two taken together were set against the rise in the cost of living the miners would have gained something like one new penny in the pound in their real living standards over this period. Is it surprising that there has been such an immensely strong and united reaction to this situation? If men feel that it is possible to make a little progress in their standard of living they are perhaps willing to go on; but if the doctrine is to be advanced that the small improvement effected in one year may be wiped out in the next year, is it surprising that bitterness and resistance arises in an industry such as the coal mining industry?
It appears—and the Government must face these consequences and features of their policy—that in the coal mining industry, and other nationalised industries to some extent, employers are being forced first of all into a position of inflexibility where even quite small changes cannot be made if they do not conform strictly with the Government plan. They are being forced into the position of disregarding the cost of living. They are being forced into the position of disregarding productivity—whether past or future. They are being forced into the position of disregarding co-operation, whether past or future. They are being forced into the position of disregarding the morale of the workers in the industry for which they are responsible.
Who can read, without being deeply concerned, of the attitude which has been take up in respect of the maintenance of equipment underground and the attitude which the miners are expressing?—my noble friend Lord Blyton referred to it.

541
They have become so accustomed to pit closures that they are prepared to accept a situation in which if indeed the industry cannot afford better treatment for those it employs, then perhaps it would be better if there were no industry. These are immensely serious consequences which are arising in the coal mining industry and which, to my knowledge, are arising in some other nationalised industries as well, and they cannot be brushed aside by the kind of generalised references upon which the noble Earl relied. I must be perfectly frank and say to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate that the Government are giving the impression that they do not care what harm is being done in the publicly-owned industries. I am sure that that is a mistaken impression, but it is the impression that is being produced by the course which is being followed. My mind goes back inevitably to the postal strike of twelve months ago, the effects of which are still being felt in the finances and in the morale of the Post Office.
Of course, the Government claim that this policy has achieved a great deal. The noble Earl gave us a number of figures which, he argued, justified the claim that this policy of the Government was having a great deal of success. It is doubtful what it is achieving in the private sector. The full figures are not so easily or so speedily available as they are in the case of the public sector. The noble Earl will agree that although there are a number of settlements in the private sector, as he said, round about the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. mark, there are others which, whether looked at on the basis of the cash increase secured, or the percentage increase, or the level of pay achieved after the settlement, present a somewhat different picture. But in so far as money increases and percentage increases have fallen, are the Government entitled to claim that this is a triumph for their policy?
Last week Mr. Samuel Brittan, who is a well known independent commentator, wrote an article in the Financial Times on, "An Incomes policy that has worked". He said, among other things:
"…only the sheerest wishful thinking can brush aside the connection between the rise in unemployment and fall in unfilled vacancies and the drop in the rate of wage inflation. The Government's policy of standing firm against public-sector wage claims and being
542
willing to sit out strikes has contributed its share; but Ministers would simply have been spitting into the wind if the labour market climate had been different."
I have quoted that extract in order to invite reflection upon the likely long-term success of the Government's policy. Even if all that the Government have claimed for that policy were true—which I do not accept—if indeed a substantial part of such success as has been gained by the Government's policy is due to high unemployment, what is the situation to be when expansion comes again? If it comes again, as we presume it must—the Government have not so far been very successful in producing it, but we must all most earnestly hope that their efforts will be more successful in future—and if the Government succeed in securing a lower level of unemployment, what will the situation be then with respect to their incomes policy?
No one, at least no one on this side of the House, is pretending that control of incomes and prices in a period of full employment presents an easy problem for a Government, but the present Government are going back almost precisely to the Selwyn Lloyd policy of 1962. They appear to be prepared to learn nothing from the experience of the preceding Government. They brush aside all that the preceding Government did in this field.
Whatever noble Lords opposite may wish were the case, in the end in good times and bad a real solution to this problem, if one can be found, can be found only upon the basis of broad agreement by Government, employers and trade unions. The Government, quite apart from anything else, have so far—and I welcomed what the noble Earl said on this subject—rejected initiatives from the trade unions and have deprived themselves (this was the point made by my noble friend Lord Balogh) of the Prices and Incomes Board, a body which could examine complex problems of this sort in some depth. As soon as one starts to look in detail at the situation in the coal-mining industry, as soon as one starts to look at this question of the "League table"—which is such a great over-simplification in the way in which the noble Earl put it—one sees the need for a body of expertise and authority which can make detailed examination of problems of this sort. Such a body is an essential

543
piece of machinery for any policy based on agreement.
My Lords, the Government have frequently advanced the argument that higher wages have produced unemployment. I venture to suggest that this is at best a misleading half truth and at worst can be a serious misrepresentation of the complex situation with which this country is faced. Such a crude analysis, which is about all we have had, may be good enough for the Conservative Campaign Guide, but we are entitled to something a little better, to something a little more perceptive from the leaders of the Government. At present their policy appears to me to be based on a dangerous misunderstanding of the trade unions and of trade union members. They seem to have gone out of their way since they were in office to minimise the possibility of securing trade union co-operation. They have sought to reform industrial relations without consulting the trade unions; and they have sought to carry out an incomes policy without consulting the trade unions. I believe that this implies a serious misunderstanding of the whole attitude and record of the trade union movement, and a failure to recognise the constructive part that the trade unions have been enabled to play by every Government in this country since the war—until the present Government.
We are focusing attention on the coal-mining industry in this debate and everyone who has as yet spoken in the debate, and I am sure everyone who will speak, recognises the seriousness of the issues which arise there. I should like to suggest to noble Lords that the crisis which is arising in the coalmining industry is a clear indication of the need for a change of course. I believe that the Government must get back on to talking terms with the trade unions, not only in the coal-mining industry but throughout industry. They must promote what it is now fashionable to call a dialogue with the trade unions. I believe that we have a great need for the Government to show statesmanship in the field of industrial relations, and perhaps in other fields, too. I most earnestly hope—and I believe that this will be the hope of all my noble friends—in the situation which is how presenting itself so sharply, that in the
544
national interest statesmanship will be achieved.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, although I cannot agree with the terms of the Motion as set down by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, or with many of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith—who none the less made an important speech—I am glad that the noble Lord has raised the critical situation in the coal industry; for it enables us to express sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who spent so long (I think he started in 1914) in the most honourable profession of mining, a profession about which it seems that the writing may unfortunately already be on the wall. But this debate also enables all noble Lords to express sympathy—sympathy which should not be narrow—with all those miners who, as a result of the present strike, are now idle. There can be hardly a person in this country, and certainly no member of the Government, who does not hold the miners in very high regard and who does not wish them to have a good living wage, either in coal production, while coal is still an important fuel in this country, or, after retraining, in other jobs. We on this side of the House do care. I am sure, also, that many of the miners themselves must deplore the actions of some of their more militant members in harassing others in their working community. The protest marches, in my view, cannot help their cause.
As I see it, and as I think my noble friend the Leader of the House has already said in his telling speech, one of the tragedies of this strike is that it is likely to result in further pit closures. I think that some 380 pits have been closed in the last ten years—not 700, as I think has been claimed.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I said that 700 pits have been closed since 1947.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I think Mr. Bailey gave those figures. My information (and I checked particularly on this) is that 380 have been closed in the last ten years. I beg the noble Lord's pardon: my figures, of course, are for the last ten years. This has resulted in 280,000 men being lost to tile industry.

545
Some pits are now, through loss of present production, bound to become economically non-viable. Then there is the question of pit safety. The miners say that the Coal Board overrate this aspect. But it is the Board's responsibility to ensure that their men work in safe conditions. It will be the miners who suffer if the Coal Board are correct. As we have been told, 12 years ago this industry supplied 90 per cent. of our energy needs. Now, I gather, it supplies some half of those requirements. The miners are in a most unfortunate position. I submit that they arc very brave men indeed to strike at this time.
Blame for the present situation has in the noble Lord's Motion been placed on the present Government. I believe, however, as my noble friend indicated, that the real trouble goes back further than that. The previous Government have a good deal to answer for. Their prices and incomes policy caused great havoc. Prices and wages spiralled at a nationally suicidal rate. Labour's policy was, I fear, to infiltrate their dogma into the industrial sectors. Bearing in mind that we are discussing a nationalised industry, why were other nationalised industries and huge purchasing concerns, such as the C.E.G.B., in which the Government believed they should hold some sway, not encouraged to purchase home coal in preference to imported coal and other forms of energy? Why was the policy with regard to pit closures allowed to accelerate at such a pace? Spiralling prices, insecurity in regard to work and the threat of imported materials, were substituted for the product from our own pits. I cannot believe that the last Government truly had the interests of the miners at heart. They should have been retraining miners more extensively to work in other fields.
It is in the interests of the people of this country that this strike be ended as quickly as possible, and I am distressed that neither the National Union of Mineworkers nor the National Coal Board seem to show willingness to have a continuing dialogue and to solve the problem. Here I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. Can it be that both organisations are so concerned with their strategic negotiating position that they assume they will lose face if they meet together? Without a
546
huge increase in the price of coal—and I see that acceptance of the present claim would cost the Board some £30 million—it may be that the Coal Board genuinely cannot increase their offer. It may equally be true that the N.U.M., if they are to satisfy their members, cannot lower their demands. In each case, surely, both sides should be working hard together to try to work out how to meet each other's case. No doubt they have been working very hard, but they must continue to do so. For only in this way will the suffering not only of the miners but of millions of people, elderly and young alike, be alleviated.
I think it was my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment who said in another place—and I think my noble friend repeated it—that the Government are not seeking a showdown with the miners. The Government do not wish to drive the miners into submission or into humiliation. As I see it, the Government are seeking a settlement which is just both to the miners and to the whole community. To allow the price of coal to increase sufficiently to cover miners' demands would undoubtedly cause a backlash throughout the nation. My other right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said in another place two weeks ago that it would be tragic if, with the prospect of a better future for coal—and there could well be a better future—irreparable damage were now done, with all the unhappy consequences, industrial, personal and social, that would inescapably ensue.
The miners themselves have, I understand, rejected recourse to a national reference tribunal. If they believe that their claim is just, I fail to understand why they have not taken advantage of a hearing before such a tribunal. I agree with what the noble Baroness said about this; and bearing in mind the interests of the miners and of the people of the country as a whole, I agree with those who say that this strike can only do considerable harm to the prospects of the coal industry. It can only result in lower productivity, higher costs and the acceleration of closures which have been going on since 1967. Pits are already beginning to crumble, and power cuts are threatened: indeed, they may have already started this afternoon. In my view, the N.U.M. and the Coal Board

547
must continue their efforts to bring this futile strike to an end. If they are not to be locked up together in one room, at least they should be kept together until they have come to a settlement. The miners themselves cannot be the gainers if they price themselves out of their jobs and the country turns increasingly to other fuels. In my personal view, this is not a matter for Government intervention but one for the industry itself to resolve. We have heard that the Secretary of State for Employment stands ready to help—my noble friend has told us this. But surely the industry itself, management and unions, must in their own interests come together to settle this very grave situation.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him if he would like to take the opportunity to go back over one very important point? I listened very carefully to his speech, and he said that acceptance of the claim would cost £30 million. In fact, it is acceptance of the offer that would cost £30 million; acceptance of the claim would cost £130 million.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I thank the noble Earl: that is so.
5.24 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, in fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, perhaps I might explain that I am taking the place of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, in the list of speakers. Let me say at the outset that I am an ex-miner and I worked down the coal mine when I was a boy. But I would not work down a mine to-day for a hundred pounds a week and I measure my words. I repeat them: I would not work down a coal mine to-day for one hundred pounds a week, and I am sure that. in saying that, I am not unique in this House. It would be a safe bet for me to declare that there is not a single Lord in this Chamber who would work down a coal mine for a hundred pounds a week. I am sure of it. Why is this?—for the simple reason that we have to recognise that this industry is the most inhuman, most dangerous and most toilsome industry in the land. In some respects it is uncivilised. although the men engaged in it form the most
548
cultured and civilised community in this country.
I often think that to-day, with our more humane ideas, if coal mines had never existed in the past and if a capitalist to-day decided to sink a coal mine and asked men to work there, the Government would declare it to be illegal. But the first coal mines were established over 200 years ago. We have grown accustomed to them, and we tolerate them because of the advances made over the course of the years. For the Record, and because of what I shall say afterwards, I am anxious to quote a commentary made by Arthur Bryant. the historian, on the First Report of the Children's Employment Commission. published in 1842. It is simply staggering. This is what he says:
"It appeared that the employment of children of seven or eight years old in coal mines was almost universal. In some pits they began work at a still earlier age; a case was even recorded of a child of three. Naked to the waist, and with chains drawn between their legs, the future mothers of Englishmen crawled on all fours down tunnels under the earth, drawing burdens. Women by the age of 30 were old and infirm cripples. Such labour, degrading to all who engaged in it. was often accompanied by debauchery and sickening cruelty. One witness before the Commission described how he had seen a boy beaten with a pick-axe. Lord Ashley in a speech in the Commons mentioned another whose master was in the habit of threshing him with a stick through which a nail had been driven. The child's back and loins were beaten to jelly."
Some noble Lords may tell me that those were the conditions one hundred years ago and that, in comparison. the coal mine to-day is a paradise. If so. it is a hell of a paradise!
Let me remind your Lordships of what happened only last year. 1971. Last year alone, 92 miners were killed in the coal mines of this country: that is an average of about two a week. Indeed, since 1947—that is since nationalisation—no fewer than 6,500 men have been killed in the mines. It is simply an industrial slaughterhouse. In addition to those men who have been killed, since 1947 no fewer than 40,000 have been maimed for life, permanently injured. And the sad story does not end there. Noble Lords will be aware that coal miners are subjected to a cruel disease known as pneumoconiosis. Even after the mines had been nationalised no fewer

549
than 860 miners lost their lives from this disease. At present, 48,000 ex-miners are drawing a part-disability pension as a result of this disease, and 20 per cent. of them are permanently disabled.
I ask your Lordships: can this misery be measured in terms of money? Can the miners be asking too much in terms of wages when they have to submit themselves to such hazards and cruelty? Noble Lords may have been shocked by the quotation which I gave at the beginning of my speech depicting the conditions in the mines at the beginning of the last century. But how far are we really removed from those days? Let me come to modern times and quote from the last report of the Medical Officer of the National Coal Board. This is what he said:
"Men in their early twenties are now contracting pneumoconiosis because of the sophisticated machinery that is being used in the coal mines. The increase in mechanisation from day to clay is producing more dust".
Because of this disease men become physical wrecks before they arrive at middle age.
In the light of what I have said so far I ask the simple question: "Are not the men who are subjected to such terrible consequences in the pursuit of their daily toil worthy of the highest wages possible in an attempt by the country to pay the debt that it owes them?" The answer is a definite and overwhelming, "Yes", yet we allow the strike to be prolonged. How unconsciously wicked we really are! Can we also disregard the loyalty of these men? In spite of all kinds of provocations and causes of despair during the past 46 years these men have loyally plodded on without having an official strike throughout that period—nearly 50 years. In 1957, there were 580,000 men engaged in coalmining. By today that number has been reduced to 284,000. They saw one pit close after another, and the men removed from one area to another. But they allowed all this in a loyal attempt to save the industry and to have harmony between the Coal Board and themselves. They saw their position in the industrial league wages table reduced from top place to sixteenth place. What a sad commentary all this is on industrial relations within the industry!
Mr. Derek Ezra, the present Chairman of the National Coal Board, makes me
550
very doubtful of his competence, both by his performance and by his observations. I would not have the slightest compunction in sacking this man tomorrow or his deputy, Mr. Sheppard, for the same reasons. He made the stupid declaration the other day that even if the strike failed and the miners returned to work he would withdraw even the paltry offer which he had made and compel the miners to negotiate from scratch. What an unworthy observation by the very man whose connection with these brave men should prompt him to he anxious to provide the men with all that they ask for—even to give them more than they ask for, if that is possible! In doing this he would be only imitating another Ezra of whom we read in the Old Testament. If noble Lords will turn to the Book of Ezra in the Holy Book they will read of another strike when the Israelites were building the Temple in Jerusalem. They were good, honest workers. They were not satisfied with the terms, and they went on strike. The priest, Ezra, went to see the king and he said, "Now look here, these are good men; you had better make the best use of them and do all you can to help them." The King decided to do so. In the sixth Chapter of the Book of Ezra the king says:
"Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of this House of God; that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expences be given unto these men, that they be not hindered.
And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of Heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail."
He was giving these men more than they asked for. What was the result? That beautiful Temple was very soon erected. I wish that the mantle of that Ezra would fall on our Ezra to-day, and that he thought more of maximums than of minimums.
With regard to basic wages paid in the industry, I have often heard it stated in television discussions on the subject that some people do not believe that many miners, if any, return home at the end of the week with about £13 in their pay packets. This fact is undeniable. In my home town of Rhosllanerchrugog, in North Wales, a married man with a family was showing me his wages sheet

551
last Saturday. This was for the last full week's work that he did. On the top of the sheet was the sum of £19. After deductions, his net wages were £l3:40. Can any man keep up a home and a family on £13 a week nowadays? I was addressing 2,000 miners on Saturday and I asked them whether any of them had their pay sheets with them, because I knew that the point about low wages had been denied. Immediately 20 hands went up, and I checked up on the wages paid. I found that this low wage was very common. That is why the threat to close the mines does not appeal to these people. They say, "If I cannot get more than £13, close the pit. I shall be just as well off on the dole and, in any case, I shall have an opportunity to find some other job."
Let Mr. Derek Ezra make it plain once and for all that the basic wages for an underground worker are £19. That is the maximum basic wage. It is £18 for the surface worker. This man has been trying to dupe the country, the miners, and even the Press. Last Friday there was a photograph in The Times, of all newspapers, which was given to the paper by the N.C.B. There was a picture of a tunnel down a pit where the sides and the roof were squeezing in. I discussed this with a mining engineer. He said to me, "It is ridiculous to think that this has happened because of the three week strike. It would take months for this to happen". As a matter of fact, I learned afterwards that The Times had been duped. This picture was actually taken at the beginning of last November.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: In Nottinghamshire.
LORD MAELOR: Yes; and it was published last Friday, to reveal the effects of the strike. It had been taken at the beginning of November.
My Lords, Nye Bevan once said that Britain is a lump of coal surrounded by fish. He wished to point out, I suppose, that the only raw products we have are coal and the fish that surround us. As coal is the only raw product for export that we have in this country, and on humanitarian grounds, the Government should declare that no man connected with a coal mine should be allowed to return home at the end of the week with
552
less than £18. I am sure that that is not too much to ask for these men, of all people. The Government should declare it. We hear a great deal about "the norm"—it has been mentioned oft times in the debate so far—but I would re-echo the headline of the Sun newspaper last Thursday when it declared—"To hell with the norm!"
We have been told that it would cost the Coal Board £30 million to meet the miners' demands. I maintain that that can be done simply.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is the noble Lord quite certain that he is not muddling up the miners' demands with the Coal Board's offer, as my noble friend Lord Dudley pointed out?
LORD MAELOR: No, my Lords. I am sure I am clear in my mind: a Welshman always is. We have been told that it would cost the National Coal Board £30 million. Well, that can be done quite easily. At the moment the Coal Board have to pay annually a capital debt interest of £33 million. Surely, that should be the responsibility (I am not giving way to the noble Lord) of the Government. It was the Government, not the miners, who nationalised the mines, and it was the Government who paid the coal owners huge compensation sums. It should be the Government's duty to pay this debt annually. It has been done for other industries. Mrs. Barbara Castle did it for the transport industry during the period of office of the Labour Government. She covered, not quite this amount, but the debt owed to that industry. If that were done for the Coal Board then the Coal Board would be able to give the miners even the 47 per cent. increase in their wages for which they are asking and make a profit.
Before I sit down I would also offer a novel suggestion, for what it is worth. Many years ago a penny increase was charged on every ton of coal. The money thus obtained did not go into the coffers of the mine owners but was utilised to build miners' institutes, village halls, and for scholarships, throughout the country. How about adding a penny, or two or three, on a ton of coal to-day, and then at the end of the year distributing that money to all the miners throughout the country, all to have an equal share? What would happen? Production would

553
go up because to the tune that production was increased their bonus would be increased, and we should have, I imagine, contented workers. The miners' case is unanswerable, and it will be a reflection on us as legislators if we fail to solve the present problem. Let me utter a word of warning here. The miners are not going to give in this time. I am sure of that. They were let down in 1926 by even their fellow trade unionists, but they are not going to be let down on this occasion. We have been told to-day about power cuts. Thank God for it! We shall have many cuts before this strike is over. The miner is not going to return to the mines again on the terms offered at the present moment by the Government and the National Coal Board, and the sooner we realise this the better.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blyton for having initiated this debate, and I trust that we in this House, at any rate, shall all back the miners in their demand and in their hard struggle. It surprised me to see so many women—the wives of colliers—at the meeting I addressed. The colliers are not receiving even social security—they do not receive a penny piece—and the wives suffer in consequence. But the wives declared that they will stand firm behind their husbands and not allow them to go back to the pits, even if the pits have to be closed as a consequence. The miners will not return there to work on the wages that they have been receiving up to now.
5.47 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we have great respect for the Welsh for football, song and poetry, but not necessarily for arithmetic and I think that the noble Lord, when he looks at his speech, will find that the £30 million he is speaking about is the value of the Coal Board offer and not of the miners' claim, which is very much bigger. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. I had unprecedented train difficulty in getting here and so I missed his speech, and I am sorry about that. I have frequently spoken up for the miners in the past. I remember 25 years ago suggesting that every pit should have a large car park with a label up, "Reserved for miners' cars only". That was rather treated with derision in those days, but I claim to be a prophet over that matter. With my
554
noble friend Lord Selkirk, I believe we still hold the record—and are likely to hold it for ever—in passing 300 Amendments to the Mines and Quarries Bill in, if I remember aright, about two hours flat.
This House has had some very great miners as Members. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and of course there is present company also. Each and every one of them I have heard say that he wished no man ever had to go down into a pit again. Those are roughly the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Maelor. At the same time, they have shown a general inconsistency because they always regret the contraction of the industry. I have heard them do that, too, and it is inconsistent. If one thinks that there ought not to be any mines one ought to welcome the contraction of the industry, but I have no doubt that in their hearts they had a secret fascination for their former days in the pit. In fact, Lord Hall has told me how he used to like his little stall (I think that is what they used to call it) in the pit in Wales where he could pop down with his mate for just as long as he liked and pick out as much coal as he wanted. He did not approve of new fangled mining. I think they would be very sad to-day to see what has happened. Their hopes may be coming true, but not in a way of which they would have approved. We have an enormous wage demand, and a strike in the depth of winter, backed up by very vigorous picketing, and in some cases picketing that looks uncommonly like bullying.
The National Coal Board Report of 1971 gives a rather optimistic outlook for coal. It is said that coal is becoming competitive again. A couple of months ago in a board room I heard somebody say, "We must look at coal because it is becoming competitive". But the snag about this country is that as soon as anybody can say something like that about any industry you may bet your bottom dollar that within a month or two there will be a strike and the industry will be no longer competitive. I am afraid that when one gets old and cynical one tends to remember that and to act accordingly.

555
Whatever may be the price of coal to the generating industry to-day, to the private individual the prices are absolutely frightful. At the extremity of England, in Cornwall, last summer I paid, I think it was, 27s. a hundredweight for coke. That price is not competitive with any other form of fuel, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on one point on which he seemed dubious, that the spiralling cost of wages has had the most important effect of forcing people in industry to weed out all their employees who really can be spared. That is definitely true. Somehow or other this vicious circle of costs and prices must be broken. If every rise in costs and prices is immediately followed by a rise in wages, the position gets worse and worse. I have seen it happen in South America, where the value of money can go down several per cent. per month, and one even gets cases of currency being halved in a year. Nowadays if anybody claims that he is not being paid enough he always says that he could get more if he worked in a lavatory in British Leylands. I believe somebody has already said that on behalf of the miners. I think the answer to that is. "Go and do so. It is not a pleasant job; it will not give you much satisfaction, and it is very unlikely that you will end up in the House of Lords, as so many miners do."
Somebody—I forget who it was—made a case for a so-called prices and incomes policy. This is a very facile argument and I always regard it as being rather escapist; when you cannot think of anything else you say, "Let's have a prices and incomes policy". One may be able to influence prices through some form of incomes theory, but in a free society, buying a large proportion of its requirements abroad, either raw or finished, the Government of the day do not have a great influence on prices, particularly of foodstuffs. Beef and butter are typical to-day; more people are competing for smaller supplies, and I should not be surprised if the miners' wives are using beef and butter as a powerful argument. Without rationing one cannot do much about food prices. When you get to manufacturers, if you fix prices in an endeavour to bring them down you will find that either the manufacturer cuts the quality—that happens when there
556
is too much competition, and I have seen it happen all over the East—or you do not get the goods at all because he cannot afford to make them, or the manufacturer tries to bring down his costs by employing fewer people, which means redundancy. When you get to the big services, like fuel, transport, power and communications, wages form such a large part of their costs that any pricing policy is likely to lead to redundancy or to a large resort to the taxpayer, and probably both. In all these sectors of the economy, unless there is an adequate margin between selling prices and the costs you will get no progress through reinvestment.
What case have the miners got? The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, referred to the £19 gentleman who has to support a large family and who has £6 deductions. In the first place, if he had a large family he would pay no income tax, so his reduction presumably would be £1-odd for his national insurance stamp; and the rest?—mystery. I cannot believe that he pays £4 a week to his union, although I am sure they would be very pleased if he did. I quite agree with the noble Lord that the take-home pay of the top miner should not be less than £19 or £20; but if he is going to suffer himself to have a large number of deductions for various purposes which are not compulsory, then that is his look-out. That is quite voluntary. In twenty years the miners' average earnings (one must take average earnings and no other figure) has just about tripled, and in addition they appear, from the figures, to get 2¾ million tons of coal divided among something under 300,000 miners. If they get ten tons of coal (and one can be sure that it is the best coal) that is worth, to any unfortunate consumer in the South of England, the best part of another £200 a year. Of course as we know, wages in general over this period have far outstripped prices.
Miners say that they should be paid more than other people because they always have been. Is this not a relic of the days when they had a monopoly? To-day coal has a tremendous amount of competition. More money means less coal able to be sold unless there is more production. I feel certain that the solution to this problem is more money for

557
more production. It is a very intensive labour industry; something like 60 per cent. goes straight into wages, whereas manufacturing industries rarely go above 30 per cent. and in industries like brewing it is a good deal lower. These increased wages are almost immediately reflected in the sale price, and so coal becomes uncompetitive extremely easily.
If miners feel hard up to-day, why does the figure of absenteeism go up every year? I just do not understand that; it has gone up from 12·4 per cent. in 1952 to 19·2 per cent. in 1971. Surely this is a sign of prosperity, not of penury, and certainly the brewers, the bookmakers and the clubs all over the mining areas have never had it better. Of course coal output per man over the years has risen enormously, but it has entailed huge capital expenditure and many pit closures to do this. There is still a lot of coal raised at a loss, and I wonder how much of this is masked by averages. It was not long ago that the National Coal Board appeared to be trying to fix up long-term contracts at prices which could only he matched by their cheapest pits. This struck me at the time as being very queer arithmetic, and if those contracts had gone through (and I do not know whether they have) inevitably the other tied buyers, such as the electricity industry, must be paying the piper, to an extent; and the Central Electricity Generating Board certainly had some grumbles on that score.
One does not grudge production going on for social reasons. It is essential that there should be a slow and orderly run down. Anywhere where closures would be a social calamity it is the duty of the community to keep the mine going as long as possible. But it is the public who are paying the bill, both in the very high price of coal and in not getting much return from the National Coal Board. They are the ones to suffer when there is a strike and they feel let down in this sort of way. A further warning is that if and when the Coal Board find that certain pits will never be able to open again and the Central Electricity Board look to other fuels for their generation, then it is not only the Coal Board and the mines who will suffer; it will also react on British Railways, because British Railways get a large revenue out of carrying coal, and if there is a substantial drop in coal production I fear there will
558
be considerable redundancy and big losses in British Railways. I am absolutely certain the answer to this problem is to get together again, go to arbitration, make an offer. In the view of the industry there must be more production per man hour and then more wages for it.
6.2 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I feel a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, and a certain amount of opposition to what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said, because although he quotes the Welsh with abilities in poetry, song and rugby football he queries our ability in arithmetic. I hope I have got the arithmetic right because I have copied it from somewhere else; this arithmetic ought to be all right. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, because I was born on the edge of the same coalfield, but I think I left it before he did.
My Lords, I rise this afternoon to make abundantly clear that I oppose and reject the censure Motion your Lordships' House is debating this afternoon. My attitude is based on the twin facts that the form of words in which the Motion is presented is crude and misleading and also that the implicit meaning in the Motion is unrealistic. I think that if it were accepted it would constitute an open-ended charter for widespread strike action in a multiplicity of industries throughout our economic structure and would do irreparable harm to our country. To imply that the Government's policy towards incomes made inevitable industrial action a factual necessity is to riddle the basic foundations of our economy with very damaging fissures.
As an industrialist I have kept in close touch with the events leading up to the mining strike which started on January 9. To say that there was an inevitability of strike action in the negotiations that were held constitutionally between July 6, 1971, when the National Union of Mineworkers' Aberdeen Conference passed wages resolutions calling for a minimum weekly wage of £26 on the surface and £28 underground, and £35 per week on the national power loading agreement, right through those negotiations that took place on September 14 and October 12, is a grave reflection of the stiff-necked attitude of the bodies that were negotiating on both sides. On October 12 the

559
Joint National Negotiating Committee heard the Board offer increases of £1·80 for surface grade No. 2 and £1 ·75 for other surface grades and all underground workers. This offer was rejected on October 14. I will not enumerate all the dates of the other meetings, but on December 2 last year the National Union of Mineworkers had a strike ballot, which resulted in the announcement that 58 ·8 per cent. were for and 41 ·2 per cent. were against the proposal, yet on December 9 the N.U.M. Executive unanimously voted to call a strike from January 9, 1972, and notified the Board accordingly.
A series of meetings followed. On December 13 the Board Chairman, who has been very harshly castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, met the mineworkers' leaders and improved on the offer. On December 16 the National Union of Mineworkers Executive rejected that revised offer of £2 on surface minimum and £1·90 for others. Thus, to that it was the Government's policy towards incomes which made the strike inevitable is to my mind a gross distortion of facts.
Let us have an analytical look at the changes over the years in miners' wage rates and compare them with the cost of living index. I invite you to take January, 1947, as a basic date for an indext of 100, both for wages and for the cost of living index. During the years 1947 to 1970 the index of wages for miners went up from 100 to 400, while the cost of living index only went up from 100 to 256, distasteful though that was. But that is not all. If you take the 1971 offer which has been made and, unhappily, rejected, the cost of living index has gone up from 100 to 280 ·4, but the index of wages for the minimum surface grade of miners has gone up from 100 to 444 ·4. You will see that the amount of increase in wages in the mining industry has far outstripped the cost of living index.
Furthermore, there are some interesting anomalies that interest me, as an employer, in the way in which the cost of deductions from miners' wages are assumed and taken into their calculations. It is rightly said that what matters nowadays is the take-home pay of the worker in any industry. A good deal of play is made of the fact that mining is a tough
560
and highly demanding occupation and that it puts great strain on both the physical and psychological stamina of the workers. No one denies that. The average picture is of a lean human body stripped to the waist lying on its back wielding a pick with which is hacked a narrow seam of coal overhead; he is lonely, under muscular strain and all other kinds of objectionable and dirty pressures. In point of fact a modern pit is nothing like that on average; it is nothing like so satanic a place in which to work.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell me how he knows that?
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I am in coalmining machinery and I go down every now and then. The noble Lord is quite right: none of us here would get £100 a week to go down a pit. For one thing, nobody would pay us; and for another, we are too old. Mechanisation of the mines, better ventilation and coal-cutting machinery have altered that picture, and the rewards in comparison with those in other industries are substantial, particularly when the proffered rate for the avoidance of this deplorable strike is taken into account.
The take-home pay of a powerloader man without children on £30 a week, after deducting his income tax of £5·36, his National Insurance of £1·59, mineworkers' pension scheme and union subscription of 35p—not £4, as Lord Hawke rightly refuted—is £22·70 a week. After the proposed rate he would have been taking home £23·99, and I am credibly informed that the Coal Board's offer would have put the lowest paid workers from their position of sixteenth in the national wages league, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, up to sixth place—a very substantial improvement, as noted by the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
There are other notable anomalies in the make-up of miners' wages. For instance, in addition to the actual money paid there are allowances in kind—for example, coal and housing, which are worth on average far more than £2 a week—wholly untaxed. There is another factor which I mention with some reticence: that is, the habit of the miners, either directly or through their spokesmen, of deducting their contributions to

561
National Savings from their take-home pay. As an ex-Chairman and current President of the National Savings Movement I very much welcome the contributions of the miners to our savings schemes. We are very glad to observe their sense of thrift and precautions for the future. But it is, I submit, quite illogical for these savings to be deducted from their factual take-home pay, as indeed is their contribution of 35p a week to their trade union levy.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, can I give an explanation for that? What happens is that the minor has mortgaged a house; he has to pay his interest every six months, and he has to save something, even if he starves himself, to cover that interest. The result is that he takes advantage of the opportunity given at the coal mine and he says, "Deduct a pound from my wages whatever they are, because I must have the money in six months' time to pay this interest on my mortgage."
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, with great respect, that does not come out of his take-home pay any more than rent does.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point. Did I understand him to say that 35p was the union contribution?
LORD THOMAS: Yes.
LORD TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong. That is what he pays for pension and his miner's contribution, and that makes a big difference.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, I accept that, and I apologise. What makes this current strike so deplorable and the hardened arteries of some of the negotiators so distressing is that the period up to the start of the overtime ban last November indicated trends of performance which would have enabled the industry to fulfil its financial obligations in the present financial year. This would have been achieved even taking into account the offers that were made during the negotiations last autumn. The industrial action taken by the Union has now completely overturned this prospect.
562
The mining industry was beginning to get a goodly record for consistency of productivity. To put it on the chart with broad strokes, in 1960 coalmining suffered 1,669 stoppages, and the rest of the economy suffered 1,163. By 1970 the number of stoppages in the mining industry had fallen to 157 as against 3,731 in the rest of the economy. These, my Lords, are meaningful figures and, what is more, the mining industry was entitled to feel that up until last summer it was making substantial progress towards establishing a feasible energy policy for the longer term based on maximising the use of indigenous sources in order to reduce our national dependence on imported oil.
Past performance could be extrapolated into a pattern of supplies to reduce dependence on imported oil, and it goes something like this: in 1971, the total energy required in the British economy was, if expressed in millions of tons of coal, equivalent to 330. By 1980, that figure was extrapolated to 430 million tons of coal equivalent. Out of these two totals of 330 and 430 million tons, it is expected that a combination of nuclear and hydro energy will provide respectively 12 and 40. North Sea gas will provide 24 and 70. North Sea oil, which is coming along, will by 1980 provide the equivalent of 80 million tons of coal equivalent. But coal is going to remain steady. As far as can be seen, it will remain steady at 140 million tons in 1971 and 140 million tons in 1980. In other words, there is every prospect that if we can get rid of this industrial withdrawal of effort, the balance of imported oil will be reduced from 154 to 100 million tons of coal equivalent over the next nine years, giving us a reduction in import dependence from 47 per cent. to 23 per cent.
This is a very important factor in our national economic equation. But clearly increasing confrontations of the extravagant kind that have beset our industry over recent months make it difficult for us to establish that British coal is in fact the more secure option. It is abundantly clear that sooner or later this question of the relationship between wages and the cost of living index has to be sorted out, not by an emotional parading of the streets, not by the swinging of arms and the shouting of slogans or, for that matter,

563
by spitting into the faces of female clerical workers. Extravagant demands for higher wages can only give another vicious upward twist in the rising spiral of the cost of goods in the high street shops.
The cost of coal is an essential factor in the equation of our national economy, and it is an important element in the price of practically everything that we produce. If those who work in the mines were paid at disproportionately low rates then there would be a case for thoughtful reassessment and practical readjustment. But this has to be done by rational negotiation, not by what is misleadingly called industrial action, which really means industrial inaction in so far as production is concerned. Why should the public, the taxpayer, and the workers in other industries be made to suffer by the threat of ultimately disruptive power cuts and all the human misery that they could bring?
As this strike goes on it can he reasonably concluded that the attitude of the top levels in the Union is not permanently the attitude of the great majority of their members. It is increasingly difficult to disregard the direction of the strike. It is politically motivated, and that is why I repeat that I oppose and reject the Motion to express,
"disapproval of the Government's policy towards incomes which made inevitable industrial action by the miners"
I look forward to irrefutable physical support by Members of your Lordships' House in the Lobbies for this point of view.
6.18 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord who has just sat down that I hope he will not be disappointed after inviting me to go into the Lobby with him, but I shall not be there; I shall be voting for the Motion. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blyton first of all for initiating the debate. I am also appreciative of the usual channels for the expedition they have shown in putting it on at such an early date.
I should like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said about concessionary coal, because I think the facts ought to be widely known. Concessionary coal to miners is as old as the
564
industry itself, and is no different from the perquisites and concessions that are given to those on the railways, or those that are given, in the form of luncheon vouchers, to other workers in industry.
A NOBLE LORD: And directors.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: When a colliery company in Nottinghamshire were deciding what they were going to pay to the coal face workers for producing a ton of coal, the figure was based not on 20 cwt. but on 21 cwt. The miners had to produce 21 cwt. in order to be paid for 20 cwt. On the assumption that the output per man per day was 3 tons, they had to produce 15 cwt. extra over a five-day week. The miners received concessionary coal every month, but although they had produced 60 cwt. extra over the four weeks they received in return only 20 cwt. I thought it important to put the record straight so far as miners' concessionary coal is concerned. The noble Lord said that in the South-West he was paying £20 a ton for ten loads a year, which is £200. But may I remind him that that coal would have been purchased at the pithead for not more than £6.50 per ton? Perhaps the next time he speaks, he will tell your Lordships what happens to the difference between the pithead price of £6.50 and the £20 that the merchant charges.
Those of us who have associations with the mining industry, and particularly those who have worked in and about a coal mine, as I did for 33 years, nearly 20 years of which were spent underground, find it not only difficult but almost impossible to divorce history from the present situation. But before turning my attention to the present situation and to its problems (and who would deny that, throughout its long history, one outstanding characteristic of the mining industry has been, as it still is, the many inscrutable problems that it has had to solve?), I want to say one or two words about the human side, because it is important. There is a tendency for even the most tender-hearted of us to forget the human side of this important industry until something spectacular, such as the Aberfan disaster, brings it to the surface. I thought of this fact when my noble friend Lord Blyton intervened during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

565
Coal mining takes place between 500 and 1,000 yards below the earth's surface, in high temperatures, with dusty atmospheres and little room for movement when the seam is thin. I myself worked for a considerable time in a seam that had a thickness of only two feet. For seven hours I worked on my knees in a cramped position, and the meal break was not long enough to give time to crawl out into the gateway where there was more room to take one's little bit of sustenance. Believe me, my Lords, conditions of that kind are no picnic. It is not like going to the races, and it is certainly not like kneeling before the altar in church. For seven long hours, which seems an eternity, one is on one's knees with all the pressure on that part of one's anatomy, or on the spine. Coal mining is a difficult, dangerous, dirty, unpleasant job, and to describe it as pleasant would be doing violence to the English language.
I like to be magnanimous in my thinking, and I believe that the nature of coal mining is recognised. But, unfortunately for this industry, balance sheets—pounds, shillings and pence—dwarf the human side. To misquote the Psalmist, as my noble friend Lord Maelor quoted Ezra, if I forget the human side of this industry, may my right hand lose its cunning. I do not want to forget it because, if I and everyone else forget it, we shall become nothing more than mechanical computers, devoid of compassion for a fine and courageous body of men. All my life I have lived among them, and still do. I have worked with them, and been connected with them for more than 60 years. I have shared their adversities and their triumphs—and there have been more of the former than of the latter—enjoying their fellowship. They deserve the practical good will of this nation. For many generations, long before my entry into the pit in 1908, the mining industry had its problems, and it still has them. The problems are not connected with the geologists or the engineers; they are faced by the men and boys who produce the coal at the face and transport it along the roadways until it emerges into the light of day. It is bottled sunshine, to warm our homes and provide the energy without which economic activity would partially cease in this country.
566
In my humble judgment, the verdict of history is this. It has been a long and difficult road, with its milestones of accidents, disease and large-scale disasters, such as Senghenydd and Gresford, to mention only two, when, in a moment, without a word of warning, 650 men and boys were never again to see the light of day. In fact, they never returned home: the place where they died was their grave. Fatalities, and diseases like pneumoconiosis, dermatitis and miners' nystagmus, have over the years claimed their victims in this industry by the thousands; and the problem still exists, because these diseases continue to claim their victims. This is another balance sheet connected with the mining industry, and it should not be overlooked when assessing the value of the miners' service to the nation. Let us not forget that, as my noble friend Lord Blyton said, there are thousands in this industry, underground and on the surface, with a gross basic wage of £19 and £ respectively. By no stretch of the imagination, my Lords, can figures of that sort be described as an El Dorado.
My Lords, I should and must say, to be reasonable and fair, that much has been done in the field of safety, in reducing dust hazards and in training; and over the last twenty-five years there has been wonderful co-operation—and I think we should publicly state this—between the N.C.B. and the Union in efforts to minimise the hazards. Yet, in spite of these efforts, mining still exacts a heavy toll of human life and limb. May I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said? Last year, which was the last period for which figures were published in this field, there were 690 accidents reportable to Her Majesty's Inspectorate, 92 of which were fatal—the equivalent of two a week. I was thinking last night, when looking at these figures, that, on the average of last year, six men are living to-day who would not have been alive had there not been the last three-week strike. I mention that only to indicate the toll that this industry takes of life and limb. Further, there were 598 serious non-fatal accidents—paraplegics, broken limbs, people impaired for the remaining part of their days. In addition, there were 81,615 who were absent from work for a period of three days or more as a consequence of accidents.

567
Now no one likes this situation. It makes one's heart ache, really. It disturbs one's mentality, no matter in which part of the House we may sit. And I know that these circumstances are of mutual anxiety, and have been for many years, to the Board and the Union. But, my Lords, let us not forget one thing. It is something we cannot help, it is something we cannot avoid: that wresting from Mother Nature her treasure, which has lain there for millions of years, is a hazardous operation, and the human side of this industry, so important to our country, should not be overlooked. It should' be recognised and, in my view, suitably rewarded in cash terms. My Lords, I was anxious to say these things, for I fear that, in the normal day-to-day operations of the mining industry, there is a tendency to overlook them, though it is not intentional. There is a tendency to forget the uncertainties that there are to life and limb, and the hazards that the miner is subject to—not occasionally, but every day of his working life.
My Lords, there is the dreaded knock on the door of the house, which may come during any hour of the day or night—and, believe me, it is not the commissar and it is not the milkman: it is the purveyor of bad news, to intimate to the wife or the mother that there has been an accident at the pits. It is a frequent happening. I know this from experience as a lodge secretary. What is the immediate reaction, whether it is the wife or the mother? "What has happened? Is he alive?" It is a situation in which there is a mixture of pessimism that the worst has happened, but also a hope that it is not the end of the husband, of the father or of the son.
One incident still lingers in my memory, and I do not think I shall ever forget it. Forty years ago, as lodge secretary, I had to convey to a mother that her 17year-old son had been killed. For me, as well as for her, it was an unpleasant experience, but no words that I could use could mollify or soften the cruel blow that she received. After a breathing space, which seemed an eternity, she said, "When will they be bringing him home? And what about the funeral? My means are very slender." His father,
568
as a coal-face worker in the early 'thirties, was bringing home £2 a week. It was my unpleasant job to have to say to that sorrowful mother, "As the law stands, the employer is liable to pay funeral expenses only up to a maximum of £15". The anguish of that woman was intensified beyond description, and I can still hear her saying, "Bernard, my boy—it is monstrous! That is not even the price they pay for a pit pony. My lad has gone—but to think his life was so cheap!" She said to me, "The price of coal to us wives and mothers is a heavy one. Do the folk who have no connection with mining, to whom coal is a mere black commodity to provide energy and warmth, realise the price that we, as wives and mothers, have to pay?"
My Lords, that is the human side of the industry. It is difficult to carry out one's original intention to be as brief as possible—it really is, believe me—but there are three other things that I want to mention as briefly as possible, having dealt with the human side. There are three matters I wish to ventilate and put before your Lordships. I think they are important. They are: first, the financial burdens; second, productivity, about which we have heard quite a lot to-night; and, third, the present situation—the strike of the miners.
I will deal first with the financial burdens, and begin by referring to the coal royalties. We have talked about the economics of the industry, but these other items have not yet been mentioned. I fear that the coal royalties is one that is almost forgotten. I make no apology for resurrecting the subject this evening because these royalties are still part of the financial burden that the industry is carrying; they hang like a millstone round its neck. I will state the position briefly. Some noble Lords will remember the Sankey Commission of 1919 and the battle that took place between the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, and Mr. Robert Smillie the President of the Miners' Federation. Twenty years later the Baldwin Government decided that enough was enough and that they would nationalise the coal royalties. In spite of what the landowners had received over the years—it must have been millions of pounds—they were compensated with a redundancy payment of £66 million. They had not put the coal there. Until the

569
geologists and engineers came along they did not even know it was there; the landowners had no idea that this source of energy, this new bonanza, was there to be exploited. For many years they received from 4d. to 6d. on every ton of coal that was brought to the surface. And that levy was paid out of the costs of production.
But that is not the whole story. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act (and my noble friend Lord Shinwell will know something of that) the liability for the payment of the compensation to the landowners was transferred from the Coal Commission to the National Coal Board. Although in 1938 the global figure was £66 million, nine years later, when the Coal Board took over the liability, it had grown to £78 million. I do not know why. This is the point I want to make in this connection: from 1947 for the ensuing 50 years, until 1996, the Coal Board must pay the Government, which redeemed the Commission's stock in 1938, the sum of £2¾ million. I wanted to ask the Minister one or two questions about that, but I think I shall leave them until a later date.
My Lords, may I mention one other matter, the question of subsidence costs and surface damage to property arising out of subsidence due to mining operations? Let me say first that I make no complaint about damage to property being repaired. It is only right that it should be repaired. May I also say that the Coal Board have been very good over this, whether the damaged property has been sewage works, schools, churches or private houses; they have met their obligation. My point is that the whole of the cost is a charge on the industry. The Turner Committee, if I remember aright, in the early 1950s recommended that the industry should be liable for 50 per cent. of the cost and the Exchequer liable for the other 50 per cent. That recommendation was made 20 years ago; yet the industry is still carrying the whole 100 per cent. burden—and this cost escalates every year. In 1955, the subsidence cost was £4½ million. In the Board's Report for last year the figure is £10 million. I estimate the two items that I have mentioned, the burden of coal royalties and the cost of subsidence, are equivalent to one shilling per ton on present production.
570
My noble friend Lord Blyton dealt with compensation to the ex-coal owners and dealt with it so well that I will not say anything about that. The only thing I shall say about productivity is this. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that in the last 20 or 25 years there has been a fantastic productivity record in the mining industry. There has been a 100 per cent. increase, both in output at the face and in output per man-shift. No industry in this country and in the field of productivity has a better record than the mining industry. I could say a lot more about that aspect, but I will leave it at that.
My Lords, I want to close with a reference to the present strike of the miners which I know is exercising the minds of all noble Lords. If it is not, it should be; but I believe it is. What is it about? I will put it in a sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made use of figures; the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made use of figures, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made use of figures. I will put it in a sentence, for I am certain that this is what it is all about. The miners can see their standards being eroded, year by year, in two respects: first, because of inflation; second, by comparison with other industries. If this erosion of the miners' standards is not halted (and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Beswick will appreciate this), they will be like Mansfield Town and Nottingham Forest Football Clubs—at the bottom of the League table.
There has been an increase in retail prices between 1970 and 1971 of 10 per cent. on the Board's offer—which has now been withdrawn—and I would say to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. Ezra: "Choose your statements more carefully." In my experience, nothing has embittered miners more than his statement, "If you do not accept these terms then they are withdrawn." This is interpreted by the miners as: "If you don't have this at some time in the near future then, like bad boys, you will get the cane." May I put it another way? Comparing the 1970 figures with those of to-day, the surface worker with two children would be 2 per cent. (or 32 new pence) worse off; the surface worker with no children would be one per cent., or 15 new pence, worse off; a power loader

571
with two children would be 4½ per cent. or £1.15 worse off, and a power loader with no children would be 4 per cent. or 98 new pence worse off.
My Lords, as everybody admits, the miners are moderate, reasonable and sensible people. But if they feel that they are being trodden on, or that their standards are being attacked, as they feel at this time is so—and I agree with them—they will resist. In my long connection with them I have not witnessed more determination than there is among our mining folk at the moment, and I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Blyton. I hope that something will be done. One of the things that has to be done is to bring about the financial restructuring of the mining industry to avoid such unpleasant episodes as this; because as a result of it the dove of co-operation has gone through the window and a tiger of bitterness has come in.
6.52 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sure that every noble Lord in this House has gained immeasurably from the speeches of the three noble Lords who are ex-miners, and not least from that of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. I cannot entirely agree with the terms of his Motion but I entirely respect what he has said and the great experience that he brings to our debate. If I have to praise all three, the noble Lords, Lord Blyton, Lord Maelor and Lord Taylor of Mansfield, I would say what an inestimable advertisement for the mining industry they are. One can hardly believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, was born in 1895. I only hope that I shall be as hale and hearty and full of information as is the noble Lord at his age. I am sure that all three of these ex-miners, and many other noble Lords, have considerable sympathy for the low-paid workers in this industry. I say that first and foremost, because I do not think it reasonable in this day and age to have gross pay of £18 or £19 a week. I should have thought this was something which could be negotiated within the industry to set the matter right.
The Motion seeks to link the Government somehow with these lower paid workers and I do not think this is really
572
a logical sequence. It seems to me that the Government have, of course, some responsibility for the 1 per cent. of people who have jobs in mining; but they have also a great responsibility for the 99 per cent. who have not. Above all, the Government have an over-all responsibility for the economy of this country; and if this economy is destroyed our prices will become uneconomic, labour costs will seek to rise, because naturally they follow round, and as a result we shall have an even greater measure of unemployment which cannot be good for this country or the economy. So that is the responsibility which any Government must put first and foremost.
My Lords, we have heard a lot in this debate about miner's take-home pay. I saw a television discussion on it. But I would prefer to relate the matter to earnings rather than to take-home pay because there are a number of factors, some of which, like taxation, are involuntary—none of us likes paying tax—and others, such as rent and contributions to pension, which are to some extent voluntary.
As there have been so many quotations about the low wages of weekly workers perhaps I might set the record right by putting the other side. I have said that my sympathies lie with the low-paid workers and particularly those who work underground. But I think that we should recognise that on October 9, which was the last week of full earnings before the overtime ban was exercised, the average wage of all adult mine workers was £28·01. That is not great, but it is certainly very different from the figures which have been quoted in the Press and by the communications media. The men on faces covered by the national power loading agreement were getting £31·19 and if the offer now before the N.U.M. were accepted they would be getting £34·69. Compared with the wages in the motor industry, where I think the workers are in a very privileged and strong bargaining position, that is not a great figure, but it is much greater than many of the figures which have been quoted and I think that the record ought to be put right.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, leaving on one side the national power loading figures can the noble Lord say how many

573
hours of overtime is included in the figure of £28·5 which he has quoted?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I have the figures, and perhaps I may give them privately to the noble Baroness. They come from the National Coal Board. The amount of overtime worked varies between 14 per cent. for surface workers down to, I think, 6 per cent. for others. But perhaps I may give the figures to the noble Baroness later.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I have them.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, a lot has been said both in the debate in the Commons, which I have read, and also in your Lordships' House, about the wages league. I find it a little difficult to understand because this league is made up of "the minimum wage rates"—not earnings, incidentally—"of the lowest grade male manual workers". It is not a realistic league by normal standards. My source of information, the House of Commons Library and the House of Lords Library, tells me that this information is published in the Industrial Relations Review and Report. It did not start to be published until the beginning of 1971, just a year ago. At no time during the period over which these figures have been published have the mineworkers been at the top of the league. But we have had that repeated and I wanted to correct the record. I think the important point is that now the miners are sixteenth in the league, and if they accepted the offer now before them they would rise to sixth place and be level with the dockers' fall back pay, the minimum position of £20 a week. Again I think that is unrealistic and I do not hold great store by it. I have sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who asked whether differentials were to stay static for ever and aye in a flexible and developing economy such as we have in this country. If this were so, it would produce a ridiculous result.
It may be apocryphal, my Lords, but I have heard the story of the convenor, of the shop steward who was asked whether he believed in equal pay for women. He said, "Sure I believe in equal pay for women, and the sooner they get it the better! But, mind you, we shall go for the differential when they
574
get it!" That is the attitude. Of course they believe that people should get a rise, but the moment that the lowest paid workers get a rise there is someone who demands a differential, and up go the wage rates and round goes the wages spiral.
We have also heard (and there is sympathy with this viewpoint) that the miners are worthy of special treatment because of the danger of their work, the possible hazards to health and other factors. If that is so, surely the trade union movement ought to state that it is prepared to give special treatment to the miners above all other workers. There has been no enthusiasm for that by the T.U.C. or any other section of the trade union movement. Mr. Roy Mason, M.P., made a statement suggesting that this course should be followed. I wait, as I am sure that your Lordships will wait, to see whether this suggestion is followed up. Certainly it is not something about which the Government can decide. The Government should not select one section of workers for preferential treatment. If they started to do that, they would be in real trouble in respect of other wage claims.
My Lords, I think it is worth noting that in November, 1970, 17 months ago, there was a miners' award of 12½ per cent. As my noble friend said from the Government Front Bench in addition to that 12½ per cent. in November, 1970, there is now on offer another 7·9 per cent. If one believes the calculations which appeared in the Economist a fortnight ago, they indicate that this 7·9 per cent. is nearer to 12 per cent. I would concede that that is probably an inflated rate, but there are calculations which show that 7·9 per cent. is a modest rate, and if they get increased productivity, which I think is likely, it would go well above 7·9 per cent.
I ask, why has the National Union of Mineworkers refused to have a ballot on this new offer? This is surprising. They changed the rules on ballots. It used to be 65 per cent. in favour before a strike could be authorised. Those rules were changed to 55 per cent. If the old rules had prevailed this strike would not have taken place because the ballot showed only 58 per cent. in favour of accepting. If a compromise is arrived at, should they not go back and see whether the compromise is acceptable?

575
Why should one ballot be accepted and stand and then all negotiations thereafter are to be by the N.U.M.? I also wonder why the N.U.M. has rejected arbitration. The National Reference Tribunal has passed, I think, 35 judgments since the end of World War II. It has been said that the Union does not think it is objective enough. On the other hand, the clerks' wages in the mining industry were referred to this tribunal as recently as last November. If the tribunal was sufficiently neutral in November, why is it not now considered neutral enough to pass judgment on this arbitration?
One cannot help feeling that the longer this strike goes on the more difficult it will become to settle it. Entrenched positions are taken up by both sides and tempers become shorter. The militants take things into their own hands, outside the direction of their unions, and we have instances of things which are wholly undesirable and which make it more difficult to get a settlement or a compromise eventually. It is not right to say that this Government or previous Governments have not singled out the coal mining industry for special consideration. It is as a result of the help given by successive Governments of this country that while in the E.E.C. only 29 per cent. of their primary energy comes from coal, in this country 45 per cent. of our energy comes from coal. So coal is in a special position in this country. One has to remember that West Germany, which contributes something like two-thirds of the coal used by the E.E.C. countries, will be our main competitor.
It is worth considering how successive Governments have singled out the coal-mining industry for special consideration. The Government have helped by persuading the C.E.G.B. to use coal. The Seaton Carew power station, rather against the wishes of the C.E.G.B., is to be a coal-fired station. The report by the C.E.G.B. for 1970–71 was very critical of this. It did not like coal being forced on to it, because it maintained that some of the natural gas and perhaps oil would be more economical for it to use. So compensation has been paid for the extra coal burned, which was limited to £45 million per annum.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—noble Lords who wish to look
576
this up will find it in House of Commons Paper 471—listed a whole host of areas where special grants or financial aid have been given to the coal industry. The Government agreed to the writing-off of enormous debts. Under the 1965 Coal Industry Act, £450 million in past debts was written off. This saved the charges on them and helped the National Coal Board's accounts. I was rather surprised to hear strong requests being made by noble Lords opposite that again debts should be written off. I am sure that noble Lords would wish for their own personal debts to be written off with such ease and frequency, but are we to write off debts for the industry in this way? It seems that that would be singling it out for lavish treatment. Of course there has rightly been help to the Coal Board in the rundown. Half the cost of redundancy payments has been met by the Government under the 1965 Act and now two-thirds under the 1967 Act. It is right to recognise that this comes from the taxpayers, industry and the Government.
Then there has been the tax on oil of £100 million a year in order to make oil more expensive and to give favour to coal. It is recognised that this is an aid to the coal industry. There has also been tremendous capital expenditure, and rightly so, concentrated on the modernisation of pits by the National Coal Board. I will give the figures for the successive years from 1964–65: £347 million, £297 million, £210 million, £176 million, £164 million, £118 million, £134 million. So although it was a falling rate, there was £1,446 million of capital expenditure in seven years, an average of over £200 million a year. That was probably right, but let us recognise that this has been given. It is this capital expenditure which has led to the enormous increase in mechanised production. It was at a low level—27·8 per cent.—in 1958 and rose quickly in 13 years to 92·2 per cent., with much better conditions as a result. Of course productivity has increased markedly. It would be very disappointing if, with this injection of capital and all this help, it had not increased. With closures and concentrating on productive and modern pits, productivity has been helped. I noticed that the General Secretary of the N.U.M. stated that 700 pits had been closed. This is not so, for the number is 380, and there has been a reduction in

577
the number of men employed of 280,000, not 400,000 as the General Secretary, Mr. Daly, said.
There are two or three aspects which the House must be sad about. First, it does the mineworkers no good when we see the unpleasant way in which they picketed the secretaries of the National Coal Board. This is a gallant, manly industry which we all like and which many of us wish to praise. Men in the industry do not live up to their standards when they treat young women in that way. I also thought it unfortunate that the Minister, Mr. Robert Carr, should have been pelted with eggs and besieged when he went to open a labour exchange in Bolton.
It is not quite in keeping, when there is picketing of supplies of oxygen and other essential fuels for power stations. If people are to be thrown out of work through power cuts in the coming week, that will not be because of shortage of coal—the power stations have supplies—but because of militant pickets preventing oil and gas supplies getting to the power stations. This is a departure from normal industrial practice. I wonder whether when picketing was first thought of it was thought that it would be used outside the men's industry, to force and even to blackmail the nation. Finally one must also be sad to see the destruction of modern equipment in our mines, the destruction of equipment which is not only costly but which will take a long time to replace. People are literally destroying or allowing their jobs to be destroyed. This I think reprehensible. It is surprising because the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Gormley, made a solemn agreement with the General Secretary of N.A.C.O.D.S.—the National Association of Colliery Over-men, Deputies, and Shotfirers. These are the people who supervise the safety measures in the mines and who would maintain the equipment while the strike was on. They are now being picketed and are prevented from going into the mines to see that overheating does not take place. Surely, to allow these mines to be destroyed at a time when coal is fighting for its competitive position with other fuels is like bringing the temple down around your ears. I think it is right that the House should be critical of this aspect of this unfortunate dispute.
578
I come, finally, to what is the message from this debate. I think it is good that the debate should have been initiated, although I must say that I do not agree with the terms of the Motion. Surely we should say from this House that sooner or later there will have to be a compromise, and that this compromise can be reached only if the Union and the National Coal Board get round the table and discuss what is a reasonable settlement. While the two are miles apart, not talking, there is no hope of overcoming this difficulty and finding a compromise which is acceptable. The Minister of the Department of Employment and Productivity, Mr. Carr, has said that his door is open. But surely it is not right for him to intervene so long as the two sides of the industry, who help govern the industry, both the unions and the National Coal Board, are standing pat on their past offers and refusing to talk or to compromise. Let them come together (is not this the message that should go out?) and then we may get a settlement which must be in the interests of this country and of our economy as a whole.
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, this Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Blyton, applying as it does to miners, could be extended to other workers in the pipeline who are waiting for wage increases. My noble friend made a moving though restrained speech, but it was also full of hard arguments. I think we have had a large dose of statistics and percentages. I will not confuse your Lordships with any more but will deal with the political and social implications that this Motion throws up. I do not blame all our economic troubles on this Tory Government: that would be as silly as the way they blame their present difficulties on the previous Labour Government. But this miners' strike cannot be discussed in isolation, without examining the measures taken by the Government, from their maladroit first Budget to the one million unemployed which we now have.
What makes the miners' case a little special—and many noble Lords have queried this—is that in this great traditional industry there has been an orderly run-down. They have been patient and co-operative while many of their jobs

579
have disappeared. However, this has not helped them to keep up with the wage increases in other industries. Great credit is due to the Mineworkers' Union and to my noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham. We hear a great deal about the economic climate that is necessary to tempt the business community to respond to the Government's reflationary measures, of which they have produced a great many. Few people worry about the climate in a shrinking coal industry, where the pits are steadily closing and the jobs are being run down.
Both the Miners' Union and my noble friend Lord Robens criticised the Labour Government for not maintaining a high level of production. Neither oil nor gas, or nuclear power, is yet the cheap miracle fuel in comparison with coal. This idea has been greatly exaggerated by people who think that coal is finished. The Government, after all, can for social reasons take measures to keep men in employment, especially when they must know that 70 per cent. of miners work in depressed areas. If they do not somehow compromise, they are acting to increase unemployment still further. This, as well as the dirt and danger of the job, as I have said, makes miners a special case in dealing with pay awards.
The resignation of my noble friend Lord Robens was a great blow to the mining industry, and especially the reasons for his going—the hiving-off of the profitable ventures. No one can deny the spiteful and jealous attitude of Tories towards the nationalised industries. First they insist on profitability as the main criteria, and as soon as this is achieved they legislate to pass the profitable bits to private enterprise. Not even the Rolls-Royce failure and the trials of the shipping industry to carry on without some Government help can dissipate their doctrinaire phobias about public ownership. It is over the balance between public and private ownership in this accelerating technological age that there is a great divide between the two political Parties. For it is the Government's iron grip on the Coal Board—and we are not taken in by their denials—as well as the Government's total rejection of an independent prices and incomes policy, which includes dividends, salaries and wages,
580
that has brought about the coal strike to-day.
The Coal Board's debt could be written off without adding a penny to the price of coal. This is what Mr. Harold Lever said in the debate on coal in the other place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, takes note of this.
Mr. Harold Wilson said during the debate on unemployment that when private spending and private investment has failed to provide full employment, only by public spending can the problem be solved. I must say that I could not agree with him more. In spite of the many inflationary measures that this Government have been forced to take, they have brought about a bad climate in industrial relations and embittered the workers, as we can see by this miners' strike, by dealing with inflation only by the method of unemployment. The last-minute plans for retraining will take years to yield results. In fact a Member of Parliament, Mr. Frank Tomney, said in the debate that we should have begun retraining during the Macmillan Government.
I have been reading accounts in the Press of the Report of the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. The O.E.C.D. approves of the Government's reflationary measures to stimulate the economy but warns that these are not going to reduce unemployment quickly. Now the miners are not fools, and the Mineworkers' Union know this. When, I wonder, is the climate for investment to reduce unemployment going to change? Let us for a moment put the two cases side by side. The miners are on strike for a higher wage settlement. Would it not be fair to say that the business community is going slow on investment? And, after all, this investment would reduce unemployment.
I read the Prime Minister's speech on unemployment in the debate in the other place. Mr. Heath gave a clinical analysis of the employment situation, but he had no solution other than fiscal and monetary policies. Other speakers trotted out the old cliché about workers pricing themselves out of a job. The Prime Minister has recently had a very nice increase in salary. I am not one of those who think that our legislators are

581
grossly overpaid, but I have not noticed that anyone has written to The Times suggesting that the Prime Minister is pricing himself out of a job. A few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making a speech in Leeds. The Yorkshire coal miners are some of the most militant in the country, and he said to them that the "de-escalation of pay settlements was a very happy trend". Well, my Lords, I wonder what they thought of that. The miners are offered dole queues while the Government state that the wage increases requested by the miners will encourage other workers to ask for increases and so lead to more inflation. When there are over a million men out of work, I think it is a necessary risk for the Government to take. The noble Earl the Leader of the House asks us to say which group of workers should give way if the miners are to be given special treatment. Might I ask him: are the Members of Parliament, who have recently had a nice rise, a special case? My Lords, this is a tragic strike, and it does not look as if Tory Government dogma is going to end it.
7.22 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, since the last great national stoppages in 1921 and 1926 your Lordships' House has had a very new experience. In those days there was no miner in this House who could put forward the miner's view to your Lordships. The Benches opposite held many mine owners and people on the management side of mines, and many landlords, but there was nobody able to put forward the miners' point of view. Therefore to-day is an historic day in which we have had miners to describe to your Lordships what it is like to be a miner. Of course on the Government side of the House there are still many families represented who formerly owned mines, made their fortunes out of mines and still have the mentality of former mine owners.
During the 1926 lock-out I was working in a shipping office, and this shipping firm were making large fortunes by bringing coal from America to this country. They welcomed the length of the lock-out of the miners and hoped that it would go on so that they could make more and more money from their ships. I sometimes had to go home from the shipping office through mining villages,
582
and one would pass down those straight rows of houses, with the miners sitting on their doorsteps with looks of absolute despair and dejection on their faces. I had somehow to reconcile the two lives I was living—in the shipping office, making packets of money, and walking through miners' villages with a tremendous sense of guilt. It was from those days that I began to get interested in economics and ended up as a Socialist.
To-day, thank God, the miners have seen to it that the shipowners are not going to make large fortunes bringing coal from America. Their case is to-day so clearly justified that it is getting support from working-class organisations all over the world and from wide sections of the public, in spite of the Establishment's propaganda in the mass media. During the week-end before last there was that superb demonstration of students in London, when many thousands of students not only demonstrated for their own grievances but joined up with the miners and the miners' unions, and marched for the miners. That was again a very historic moment in the history of the working class of this country. I cannot accept the lecture which was given to us by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. We heard that again and again in the 1920s and the 1930s, and it solved absolutely nothing: it dragged us lower and lower into the slump. There was no criticism at all from him on the mismanagement and on the lack of growth of industry. He was putting the whole thing on the demands for increased wages by the workers. It is the Tory Government, the representatives of the business employers, whose interests are completely opposed to those of the working class and their wages, who are being isolated to-day—not the miners.
The background to this strike is the Government's attack on the rights of trade unions, which they won over decades and generations of struggle, the wide fear of redundancy (which the Government are causing more and more) and, for the elderly people, permanent unemployment. Despite what the noble Earl said (he tried to make out that the cost of living was going down or remaining stationary). the cost of living is rising, and now the Government are putting up rents colossally, fares enormously; food is going up, and there is going to be a value-added tax. Yet he talks about the

583
cost of living being stationary or going down! There will be larger and larger deductions from the weekly pay packets of the working class. Because of these attacks on the real wages, the Government are asking the miners to accept a reduction, in real wages, of 4 per cent.
It is not true, as Mr. Carr and Mr. Barber reiterate, that the workers have priced themselves out of a job and that they themselves have created unemployment. Surely the restriction of purchasing power of the vast majority of the people of this country must be the basic cause of unemployment. If the miners were given more money to spend, they would want more goods produced by engineers, textile workers, farmworkers and others. And would not the same thing apply if more spending power were given to the workers in other industries as well—the Post Office workers, power station workers and the electricity industry workers? Why is it not true that if you have more money to spend—and we are in a technological age where we can produce really all the goods that are needed—higher purchasing power leads to more and more employment? However, we have to accept that big business wants this Tory Government to create and keep a certain amount of unemployment. After the last war we had a time of almost full employment, a period of nightmare to the industrialists, for it gave the workers' organisations strong bargaining power. For their public image, Government spokesmen declare that they are seriously concerned about the size of the unemployment figures. Yet at the same time they tell us that the worst is over; that our economy is now healthy; that the Common Market will put things right, and soon we shall be expanding and have prosperity for all. Yes: profits may be rising, the Stock Exchange buoyant, speculators rubbing their hands. But this will be at the expense of the working class. There is a lot of talk about productivity agreements: "If you produce more you can have a bit more wages." Between 1967 and 1971 production per miner has risen 55 per cent. The cut in real wages has been up to 4 per cent.
The Government declare that the strike is an affair between the National Coal Board and the miners, and the Government cannot step in. Are we really
584
expected to believe this? Does the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, think we are so naïve as to believe that the Government are not behind the National Coal Board and doing all they can to tell the National Coal Board not to give way? The Government's tactics are to beat the workers of the nationalised industries first, and then it will be easier to deal with the workers in private industry. First they starved out the postmen, and now it is the miners. The miners should be supported, not only on human grounds, but because they are the spearhead of the whole fight-back of the working class of this country against this Tory Government's policy on wages.
There has been a lot of talk about nationalisation. Tory Governments have always hated nationalisation and they have done all they could to cancel it out since they came to power. It is anathema to your Lordships opposite. Yet many of you on those Benches opposite have been saved by the nationalisation of the coal industry, the industry which you mismanaged so badly that you were glad when you got rid of it and could pocket fat compensation. The British Government have been behaving as if the coal industry is on the way out. In 1945, South Wales had 184,000 miners; now it has 35,000. Since 1958, over 500 pits have been closed and the number of miners reduced by 400,000. Yet the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the British Steel Corporation, have placed orders for between 5 to 8 million tons of coal abroad at prices more than double those available from British pits! Again, on the eve of this strike it was announced that 30 more pits were to be closed. Are the Government gambling on cheap oil replacing coal? We have seen oil-producing countries waking up and increasing their prices hugely. The head of British Petroleum has told us that the rate at which new large fields have been discovered has lagged behind the rate at which consumption has increased over the 1960s. Sir David Barran, Shell's Chairman, has warned that by 1990 the oil consumers
"could be looking down the muzzle of the guns."
That was in a speech to his shareholders. The policy of successive British Governments to sacrifice the British coal industry and thousands of miners to the interests

585
of a powerful handful of oil monopolists may be absolutely disastrous for this country. But, of course, one has to admit that there are some oil vested interests percolating through this Tory Government.
A similar prospect is arising with natural gas. America has reserves for only a further 13 years. New discoveries are falling behind annual production. Mr. Richard Bailey has said in the National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review, that American oil companies are moving into ownership of coal mines because the production of synthetic petroleum from coal is being stepped up to compensate for shortage of oil. He has also said in the National Westminster Bank Quarterly Review of May, 1971, that the argument that cheap energy imported from the Middle East oil-producing countries was superior to high cost domestic coal no longer rings true. The past rundown of the coal industry in the European Community and in Britain is now seen to have been a mistake. Britain currently depends on foreign sources for 44 per cent. of her energy requirements. The European Community have 60 per cent. How bitter this is for thousands of miners, and their families, made redundant in the interests of the oil tycoons. Here again I have to mention the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He said that if the strike went on the coal industry in this country would be further jeopardised and we would be turning more to oil and natural gas. Then he said that of course this was not a threat. I think if your Lordships read his words in Hansard to-morrow you will have to admit that it was a very cleverly veiled threat.
How are this Government going to encourage young people back to the industry if the real wages go on getting lower and lower? How are they going to get skilled workers in this technological age if the real wages are cut down? If the National Coal Board blandly repeats that it cannot afford proper wages, why is there such a large gap, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said, between the prices that the National Coal Board gets for coal at the pithead, which averages at £5·84 per ton, and the price that that same coal is sold for to the public at round about £15 per ton? Who gets the difference? Is it not a fact that the Sankey Commission, a long time ago—
586
in the beginning of the 1920s—suggested that not only should the coal industry be nationalised, but also the coal distributors as well? If that happened we should not have had this tremendous gap between the pit head price and the price that the public have to pay.
We are continually told that we cannot afford this and that we cannot afford that when we are talking about wages or benefits to the working class. Yet we have given ourselves quite a nice little rise in this House; also to the Members of the other place, to other members of the Establishment, and the Royal Family. Mr. Ezra receives £20,000 a year. He has never done any work in a pit in his life, and he is making a pretty good mess of things at the moment. Of course, the coal industry could be reorganised and the debts and interest to the Government wiped out. An enormous amount of money could then be given to the miners. You Members of the Government, are you so tough-skinned that you do not feel the increasing bitterness you are creating among the working people, the miners and others, in this country? Or, are you so ruthless, so arrogant, that you do not care? The speeches that some of you make seem to be inhuman. If you go on carrying out your broad attack on the vast majority of the people of this country, then some time somebody is going to blow up. To get real peace in industry, and prosperity for the great majority of the British people, we shall have to get Socialism; true nationalisation of industries producing the essentials of life with workers having real democracy in their industries, having a real say in the management, and each person receiving an increasing share of the wealth that he is producing for us all. That is the picture of the future. You may not like the word "Socialism", but I am absolutely certain that it is going to come.
7.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, after listening to the rich repetition of clichés from 1926, all about big business, about the working class and finally about syndicalist Socialism, I did not imagine that I should end up by finding myself in agreement with one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Milford, possibly because we have both been reading one or two of

587
the same sources. While I discard the overtones of some of his onslaught on so-called world monopolists, I do concede—I believe we should all concede—that Governments of both sides have tended to behave in recent years as if the coal industry were on the way out. I ought to begin by offering an apology to your Lordships, because, owing to other Parliamentary business, I was unable to listen to the opening of this debate, and in particular I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, whom I also count as a great personal friend.
Certainly, nobody who has ever represented a mining constituency in the other place can be indifferent to the mood of the present time, can be other than appalled at the event of a national strike, can be other than horrified at the Luddite mentality which has broken loose in some quarters. Any one of your Lordships who has had the privilege and honour, as I have had, to live and work in a mining community, to go down I suppose twenty or thirty pits in the constituency and to know practically every face in those pits at one time or another, to make friends with the men working in conditions described by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, so vividly, lying perhaps half in a pool of water hacking coal on their sides and all the rest, with the feeling that you are simply the ham in an ever-enclosing sandwich—this is something which nobody who has experienced it can conceivably forget.
The Motion fixes on the incomes policy, and it is not because I believe that that policy is in fact showing signs of success—and I do—that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has chosen the wrong windmill. If there is a villain in the piece I should be inclined to say it is either the lack of a national fuel policy or at any rate the total muddle in that field. We are still supposed to be trying to work the four-fuel policy of the White Paper of the last Government, issued in 1967. That was prepared under the stunning impact of several phenomena. At that time, in 1967, oil was reckoned to be abundant and was seen to be cheap. At that time, although productivity in the coal industry had risen 50 per cent. over ten years, its future was considered to be of lessening importance—and this is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord
588
Milford—in competitive terms; and the real question faced (if that is the word) by the White Paper and by the Government of that time was simply how to arrest a seemingly inevitable decline in order to stop the social impact of that event.
Then the White Paper also accepted that natural gas was the great new "in" thing. This was the new excitement; it was coming from the North Sea; it was expected to be clean and cheap, although there was some doubt about its abundance. Finally, there was even the assumption that nuclear power really held the future. To refresh your Lordships' minds about the White Paper, let me simply quote from the third paragraph of that document:
"Nuclear power has emerged from its early experimental stage into a proven and increasingly competitive source of energy".
Those are the words of the Government in 1967. The White Paper summed up current ideas and its own thought in terms which, again with permission, I should like to repeat to the House:
"Oil has grown to become a major source of energy and the base of new and vitally important industries. Nuclear power made its commercial debut in Britain and is on its way to becoming the principal fuel for new generating capacity. And now natural gas has been discovered in the North Sea on a scale which guarantees a fourth source of primary energy.
The development of nuclear power and the discovery of natural gas will allow the coal industry no respite in its continuing drive for greater efficiency."
At this point the White Paper is trying to soften the blow of that Government's judgment upon the coal industry's future. I continue to quote. The coal industry
"must expect to lose markets to the newer fuels because of their inherent advantages in ease of handling, cleanliness and price, and even if it were possible for the Government to arrest this change in the pattern of fuel supplies, it would be to the disadvantage of the economy if they were to attempt to do so. But the economy would also suffer by too abrupt a decline in coal, which would put at risk the success of the industry's reorganisation and result in needless hardship and waste.
"The Government have therefore sought to provide in their policy the conditions in which all the fuel industries will find incentive for the most vigorous further development and progress aimed at supplying industry with energy at the lowest possible cost in resources. while tempering the impact of this policy on the coal industry by transitional measures to

589
assist in its reorganisation … the Government's aim will be to make possible the supply of energy at the lowest total cost to the community having regard to the whole range of relevant considerations—economic and social".
The energy equation has now radically altered. Five years after that White Paper was published we find that nuclear power has been a very slow and very late developer. It contributes only 2·7 per cent. of our energy in Britain; it contributes only 0·6 per cent. of the energy consumed in the Common Market and 0·3 per cent. of the energy consumed in the United States. As for natural gas, exploration was almost actively discouraged by the low price offered by the Gas Council. At the same time, the target of 15 per cent. of our energy supplies to be met from natural gas by the mid-1970s has been adhered to to the point that fixed installations are now established and may not readily be enlarged. As to oil, this is no longer either cheap or so abundant as was once imagined. The producing countries—that is, those embraced by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—have imposed their own new taxes at source. Consumption, as the noble Lord, Lord Milford, said, quoting Sir David Barran, is now at a rate fast outstripping discovery. And whatever the volume of oil from the North Sea and the Continental Shelf generally may be—perhaps in volume terms up to 70 per cent. of our needs by the end of this decade—there is no doubt whatever that North Sea oil is exceedingly expensive to get and will be correspondingly expensive to supply. Nor does North Sea oil yet, at any rate, promise any relief from major dependence on imports from abroad. About a quarter or one-third of our crude oil consumption goes to industry mainly through power generation. That in turn needs heavy fuels which North Sea oil is, on the whole, too light conveniently to produce, except as a mix with heavier imported crude oil from overseas.
Then, coal. Its place in the energy equation has been transformed. Then there was a buyers' market; to-day it is a sellers' market. Now there is a world shortage of coking coal for the steel industry. Proven world resources which have also been measured amount to 460,000 million tons of coal, which dwarfs, in a proportion of five to one, the proven oil resources of the world
590
standing at 55,000 million tons. At the same time as all this, Western Europe faces a gigantic energy deficit. According to studies by the O.E.C.D., by 1990 this deficit in the Common Market will be of the order of 1,500 million tons of coal equivalent a year, and for Western Europe as a whole, including Britain, somewhere between 2,700 million and 3,000 million tons of coal equivalent. Yet in the face of that both European and British output has been allowed to fall by something like 170 million tons a year over the last 15 years. The annual production has gone down by about 85 million tons a year in this country and approximately the same in the Common Market. Little wonder, then, that the O.E.C.D. Energy Committee only a matter of weeks ago received and accepted a study urging special measures in Europe to increase coal imports. But if that points up a European opportunity for the British coal industry, surely there is another within Britain itself. Over the decade from 1960 to 1970 coal use in Britain fell 25 per cent. while electricity generation rose 40 per cent. and oil consumption rose 100 per cent. So now that the place of coal in the energy equation has been radically altered it is really bound to be a question of price as to how it makes the most of this opportunity.
British energy prices compared with those for Western Europe are considerably higher. Compared with those for France they are about 15 per cent. higher, with those for Germany 23 per cent. and with those for Benelux nearly 30 per cent. On the other hand, within Britain oil prices since 1962 have gone up 27 per cent., gas 20 per cent., but coal 55 per cent. It is quite clear that if coal is to seize the opportunity which is now ahead of it, and if the industry is to be restored to a sensible and prudent place in the economy both of this country and of Western Europe, the price of coal has got to be limited, or at any rate its rise must be arrested.
Therefore, my Lords, the coal industry's chance of seizing the present opportunity depends upon keeping the price at any rate under some restraint, while also increasing productivity, whether it be by further measures of organisation and mechanisation, or whether it means also by resorting to hydrogenation and gasification. But these matters call for a

591
flexible British Government fuel policy, consciously enunciated and comprehensible to everybody concerned; something that is based on contemporary rather than historical fact, for five years ago, my Lords, is now history. The purpose of a fuel policy must be to secure maximum effort to ensure the optimum development of all indigenous resources, be they oil and gas offshore or nuclear at home, and, finally, coal. The problem is in part one of machinery as well as one of purpose; the need is for a means of reconciling short-term economic and commercial objectives with long-term technical supply problems.
My Lords, I have only one practical contribution to make to this debate, and I put this idea to the Government for their consideration. I suggest that they should think about having a mechanism for fuel not unlike the Annual Farm Price Review. I suggest that annually there should be a close study, so that costs, demand and indigenous production may be intelligently equated with total needs. Given a flexible, realistic and, above all, comprehensible fuel policy, framed and annually adjusted in such a way one would surely have the context for an intelligent settlement of this strike, for which I cannot but believe both the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are most eager to find a formula.
7.56 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in January, 1947, the coal-mining industry became public property. It was preceded by a vigorous campaign against nationalisation, supported, as one might expect, by the Conservative Party, and assisted materially and financially by the private coal owners of the country. At that time, a year or two after the war, the coal-mining industry was in a derelict condition. That was inevitable, because during the five years of the war hardly anything was done in order to meet the natural ravages associated with underground operations. Nevertheless, following the appointment of the Greene Tribunal, compensation to the private coal owners was assessed at approximately £350 million. It was not my decision; it was left to the assessors associated with the Greene Tribunal.
592
As I have said, the industry was in a derelict condition, but the private coal owners, who were about to receive some £350 million by way of compensation, if not mollified were at any rate moderately pleased. If the industry had not been taken over by the State, it would not have raised half that sum in the market. Indeed, nationalisation of the coal industry in 1947 was a blessing to many private coal owners who before the Second World War, with the industry privately owned, were at their wits' end to make even the barest margin of profit. So, from the standpoint of many private coal owners, nationalisation of the British coal industry was not, after all, such a bad thing.
But what followed? Because of the derelict state of the industry, the failure to meet the obvious ravages associated with underground operations, the absence of any injection of new machinery, the fact that inadequate equipment was being operated, it was necessary for the National Coal Board to embark on a vast volume of expenditure for the purposes of rationalisation and mechanisation. In fact—because we might as well put this matter in its proper perspective —over the twenty-five years of public ownership of the British coalmining industry there has been expended no less a sum than £1,200 million for the purposes of new equipment directed to mechanisation. But that is not all. Over the years there has been an average expenditure on depreciation of round about £60 million annually. The raising of vast sums of this character is by no means an easy task, particularly for a publicly-owned industry. Those concerned meet with prejudice, with bias, with resentment, with opposition, with hostility from those who dislike the nationalisation concept. So the Government had to come to the assistance of the National Coal Board, and it is precisely because of the vast volume of expenditure for the purpose of enabling the mining industry to continue, if not to flourish, that we are now confronted with this position. That is what it is all about.
Something was said on the other side, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about the decision of a previous Government to write off a loss of something like £450 million. But when we

593
take into account what the Coal Board have had to borrow and expend for the purpose of maintaining a deteriorating industry, what has been described as almost a dying industry, we realise how desperate the situation was for the National Coal Board, for the mining industry, but also for successive Governments. Those Governments had to decide whether the coalmining industry should continue. There were in the last 20 years or so many reports on the question of fuel policy. Perhaps the most egregious blunder—and I will not single out any particular Government because practically all Governments have been responsible—was that they failed to promote an effective and efficient fuel policy. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has referred to the various fuel components—oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, coal and the like. Of course, if, following nationalisation, Governments had taken account of the potential of nuclear energy in peace time, the prospects of oil development, of natural gas, of electricity generation and the like, with the addition of coal production, and had co-ordinated the whole of the fuel components into a fuel policy, we might have avoided the present desperate situation.
But that is a very large subject. I will only add one word to that aspect of the matter, and it is a personal word. I was responsible for piloting the nationalisation Bill and also the Electricity Supply Bill through Parliament, and then there was what was called a fuel crisis. I find it very amusing now when people speak of the fuel crisis of 1947. There has been a crisis ever since. Almost every Government have been faced with aspects of the crisis, and have been at their wits' end how to solve it, in spite of the good weather, unlike that of 1947. It is a very interesting subject. Perhaps one day the whole truth will be unfolded when the contents of Cabinet papers can be exposed. But leave that alone for the time being. It does not help very much, anyhow, to dilate unduly on the past. Let us deal with the present situation.
I want to say to noble Lords opposite, with the greatest respect—they are entitled to their opinions as noble Lords on this side of the House are—that some of the speeches delivered on the Government side of the House will create more bitterness than ever among the miners, if
594
they are read by miners and known to miners. Take note of the nature of the speeches. Of course, there have been some sympathetic overtones and undertones, murmurs; I think that characterises the nature of the sympathy—murmurs. We could have done very well without them, particularly the sympathy that seemed to ooze out of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He was really anxious to help, if only he could, but the wind does not blow in the proper direction. He reminded me of the old saying:
"It is all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?"
That is how it struck me. It did not help very much. We had similar speeches, but always covered by an interpretation of the facts which was quite inaccurate, quite unrealistic, but nevertheless the sort of material that suffices for propaganda against the mining community and indeed against national ownership.
But we had something else: we had suggestions about how to solve the problem. I want to direct attention to that. How do you solve the problem? "Oh, it is as easy as falling off a log. All we have to do is ask the Secretary of State for industry or employment, or what-have-you, in the Government, to call all the parties together "—just like that. But what is he going to say to them? We had the answer from the other side of your Lordships' House this afternoon and this evening: that it would mean inflation if the National Coal Board increased the offer even by a small margin. Besides, it might encourage the others, because there are several demands in the pipeline and they will want their share beyond 7 per cent. or even 8 per cent. So suppose that Mr. Carr and Mr. Davies convene a conference of representatives from the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, and they sit round a table. So far as the miners are concerned, what is going to be said to them except "Unconditional surrender"? This is the very bones of the Government's policy.
That brings me to the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Blyton, in what I must say was a most powerful speech. What does that Motion convey? Just this: that if anybody is responsible for the present situation, it is the Government. There can be no challenge against that. There has been an attempt

595
to challenge it by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. We are, in effect, discussing what is to happen to a large body of men, 250,000 or so of them, who, even if some of them are doing very well with £25 or £30 a week—less deductions, but leave that aside—are certainly not, on the whole, living in luxury. To hear some noble Lords on the other side speak you would imagine the miners were living in luxury. One noble Lord (I forget who) seemed to argue that the conditions underground were not so bad after all. He sometimes goes down the pit, he declared. But I, too, have gone down the pit, not to work but to see what is happening. There is pandemonium, with the dust, the atmosphere, the potential danger and all the rest of it.
I do not want to be emotional, as some of my colleagues have been, in dealing with this matter; they have worked in the pits and I have not. I am dealing with facts. But I want to say here that it does not lie in the mouths of noble Lords opposite, some—I know not all of them—with more than £10,000 a year, some with £15,000 a year and £20,000 a year, or in the mouth of Mr. Ezra, or any other Chairman of the National Coal Board in recent years with £17,500 or £20,000 a year, to ask miners to accept the kind of conditions they are now facing. Indeed, I go so far as to say to noble Lords opposite—and I am not saying this in an unfriendly way; I have no feeling of malice towards them, but it is wrong ideas with which I disagree —that if they had any real respect for themselves and any real consideration and sympathy for the miners in their present plight, despite what is happening, all the talk about safety and the rest of it, and picketing, those with £10,000 a year would abstain rather than vote against the reasonable proposition put before your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Blyton. They would stay out of it and let the Government "stew in their own juice", because the Government's own juice is responsible for the present situation.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not present now. I do not like to speak behind anybody's back; I prefer to have them before me, but it cannot be helped. I know that this is dinner time, and that is the reason for the
596
wide open spaces, not the fact that it happens to be I who am addressing your Lordships' House. I do not suppose that it was deliberate at all. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, tells us, "This, of course, is all part of the Government's incomes policy." The Government pretend they have not got an incomes policy. They say: "No, we have not got an incomes policy. We are not tied down to any particular kind of incomes policy"—except, that is, when it comes to deciding what should be the rates of pay, and what the increases in emoluments in a nationalised industry should be. Then they have something to say. What they have said is, "In order to avoid all the iniquities associated with inflation, those who are engaged in the public sector, and in this instance those engaged in the coal-mining industry, can have no more than 7 per cent. "That is the position. We have had some speeches to-day dealing with incomes policy. I regarded them very largely as an academic exercise. There were some excellent speeches. One would have thought this was an economic debate, and nothing to do with the mining industry or a strike, or with safety provisions in the mines, but just an academic exercise. Are the Government going to promote an incomes policy? Of course they are not—except in this situation. That is the position.
Now a few final words. How is this situation. There may be a shortage of speakers on the other side—and I take note of it—say that it is a very serious situation. There may a shortage of power; there may be redundancies, and many thousands of people will be thrown out of work. Not that I think that would matter to the Government; they have already thrown out of work a million. It has become almost a habit with them! But this is what they say: "This is a very desperate situation". How are we to deal with it? To ask the miners to give way? I doubt whether that is going to happen. They may ask them, but I think the response will be in the negative, particularly after some of the speeches from the opposite Benches this afternoon and this evening. If the Government stick to that policy, then I do not see any solution to this problem. So the question is: are the Government going to give way? Are the Government going to say to the National Coal Board, "We

597
recognise that there are financial difficulties, and we are going to come to your assistance."?
How could they come to their assisance? Just look at the figures. The National Coal Board made a profit last year of £33 million, apart from the payment of interest. What was the interest? Just about the same amount. Interest on what? Interest on the loans borrowed from the Government for the express and explicit purpose of providing conditions which would enable the industry to survive. That was the position. The remarkable factor about this—and apparently it has not been noted by noble Lords—is that pits have been closed in cases where vast amounts have been spent on new equipment. I cannot offer any figures, but I am certain that many millions have been spent on providing mechanisation and various equipment in pits, only to discover that they had to close. And yet interest is being paid on the loans borrowed from the Government for those purposes.
It is not a question of complete capital reconstruction, as is suggested by some of my noble friends. It is merely a question of adjusting the situation in order to meet what might be regarded as a temporary difficulty. That could be done. It may be argued that the demands made by the National Union of Mineworkers could not be met. Perhaps they have asked for too much. It may well be so. But it is possible for the National Coal Board to come closer to the demands of the National Union of Mineworkers, so long as the Government leave the ring clear. That is what I am asking the Government to do. They should leave the ring clear for the National Coal Board and let the Board have the opportunity of adjusting its financial position in the light of what has happened in recent years, because of its vicissitudes which were inevitable in the circumstances, as I have ventured to demonstrate. Let them do that, and there will then be a possibility of avoiding cuts in our electricity supply and further redundancies and more unemployment on the railways and the like.
I do not say that we can reach a solution of this problem, any more than we seem to be able to reach a solution of any problem. But let us make the effort. Unless the Government are prepared to do that, I can see this dispute lasting
598
for much longer than any of us would desire, bringing more trouble and misery and anguish in its train. An effort should be made to avoid that. It will not be avoided by the Government simply holding firm and saying, "No. The National Coal Board have decided, and we stand by them", so that the miners must either surrender or suffer. That will not do. I am not indulging in any threat against the Government, because that is not my business. I cannot speak for the National Union of Mineworkers. But I judge by the attitude of the men, by the bitterness, by how harshly they feel about the position, that this may mean a very tragic situation not only for the mineworkers and the National Coal Board, not only for the mining industry, but also for the country. I ask the Government to sit up and take notice.
8.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl and other speakers have affirmed that this House remembers and honours the miners' contribution to British history. They have shown great qualities in peace and war. They produce our most valuable indigenous raw material. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, they have courage and endurance at the coal face or on strike and they are passionately loyal. In their present difficulties they now also need to display their judgment and common sense. These abilities will be increasingly put to the test as to-day the strike moves into its fourth week, giving this debate an extra significance. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is doing a service to his fellow mineworkers with his Motion, although I do not agree with it and think it could have been better worded. It is too abstract and academic for this highly-charged issue. Fortunately, any debate about the coal industry was sure to uncork a whole vintage jeroboam of heady rhetoric and fragrant reminiscence from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, which, as usual, noble Lords thoroughly enjoyed.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, does the noble Earl not generally find when he opens his jeroboam, that what comes out of it is sparkling?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord and I am not suggesting anything else. I used the word "vintage", too. I am not quite sure what worried the noble Lord

599
so much about the balance sheet of the N C.B. He said that there has been £1,200 million of capital expenditure since nationalisation. The fixed assets of the N.C.B. are now £1,200 million. That is the latest balance-sheet figure. The old assets purchased for £350 million have been fully depreciated in just over 24 years. There is nothing extraordinary or unusual about those figures, and similar ones can be found in the balance sheet of any company.
I do not agree with the Motion, because this is one strike which cannot be laid at the door of 10 Downing Street or at any other Ministerial door. The dispute is over weekly minimum wages; that is, the rate for the lowest grade male manual workers in the coal industry. Of the six best paid groups of this category of worker in industry, in the league table from which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, quoted, five are in the public sector and one is in the private sector. Of the 24 best paid groups, 11 are in the public sector as against 13 in the private sector. So it cannot be argued in this instance that the public sector has been unfairly treated compared with the private sector, nor that uncontrolled or excessive wage increases in the latter have influenced wage demands in the public sector. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I must say that Government intervention in the public sector, or non-intervention in the private sector, does not apply here.
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and concluded from his remarks that he thinks the miners' claim is fair. If so, it is beyond my comprehension how the Government's incomes policy can be the cause of the strike, because the claim is out of all proportion to what the Board say they can afford to pay; and is much in excess of what would be the norm of any incomes policy, even one formulated by noble Lords opposite. It would, in the Board's view, place the industry for a long time in the position of having to receive an annual subsidy from public funds. Is this what the advocates of nationalisation wish to achieve—a loss-making public sector financed and subsidised by the private sector? Is that the economic plan for recovery by the N.U.M. and the T.U.C.? Is that the noble Lord's formula for fighting inflation and stimulating investment? Or could
600
it perhaps be the stratagem of those who aim to disrupt the British economy from political motives, credulously swallowed hook, line and sinker in all innocence by noble Lords opposite?
Maybe the noble Lord really thinks that the Union has opened its mouth a bit too wide. Privately, perhaps he calculates that they have taken up a negotiating position. If it is in his mind that the claim is out of proportion to present realities, then his reasoning must be that it is being pressed by the Union because of the lack of an incomes policy. This presupposes that the law of the jungle rules over wage negotiations. That may be so, and the Government have sought to correct the situation by the Industrial Relations Act. Noble Lords opposite never suggested that the Act does not go far enough. They always said that it goes too far. But noble Lords now seem to say that this Government should legislate not only for the machinery of wage negotiation, but also for the results.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, mentioned the Prices and Incomes Board, so he must have in mind reinforcing voluntary agreement with legislation. Have noble Lords opposite the backing of the N.U.M. or the T.U.C. for this suggestion? If the noble Lord and his friends keep on like this, the T.U.C. may have to look to this Government to look after the T.U.C.'s interests. The noble Earl has outlined the Government's attitude towards statutory or voluntary incomes policies. I have in previous debates voiced my own objections to a statutory incomes policy, although I should like there to be, pace the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, wider statutory control over prices in the interest of the consumer. I see these powers as a deterrent and as seldom used. But the Government have preferred to rely on the C.B.I. voluntary agreement—more successful than I expected, but about whose long-term effectiveness I have doubts.
Changes in the general level of prices in the coal industry are a matter for consultation between the Coal Board and the Government, and this fact no doubt weighs heavily in the Board's calculations. Of course, I am in no position to know whether the Board have got their sums right: nor, I suspect, is the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. All I know is that

601
the Board say their offer is based on the maximum estimated to be available before meeting interest charges on public funds, and that beyond that they are governed by the terms of the Coal Nationalisation Act. The Secretary of State evidently agreed with the Board's estimates when he said concisely in another place:
"The Board pre-empted a 2-cwt.—almost a 5 per cent.—increase in productivity."
The offer, if accepted, would at best leave the industry in a break-even position; but noble Lords opposite say that the mineworkers should be a special case.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, said that the way to find the money was to have another capital reconstruction scheme. I listened carefully to his financial proposals, and concluded that "capital reconstruction" is a euphemism for a further cheque from the Government to cover past losses and a blank cheque for future losses. The noble Lord said that it would be said from this side that this is a subsidy. Of course it is a subsidy—and I will say why. The total loans outstanding are about £675 million, and interest charges are £36 million. Even if all loans were written off and all interest charges abolished, it would only go under one-third of the way to meet the miners' claim. So I put the position again fair and square to the noble Lord: assuming the Board's estimates are near the mark, and if the offer is inadequate, does he think that mineworkers' wages should be partly subsidised by the taxpayer? Or would he prefer a further price increase, to fall on the general body of consumers? These are questions which require to be answered in the course of this debate, and in the context of this Motion.
The Motion misfires because it tries to establish a connection where none exists, between Government incomes policy and the strike. In fact, the Government bear about as much responsibility for the strike as the noble Lord himself, if not less, and a great deal less than the noble Lord's friends on the Union Executive. I think the noble Lord impaired his Motion by trying to find a scapegoat. So many causes, deep-seated and of longstanding, contributed to the strike that it is a waste of time to try to pin responsibility on any one of them. I could mention the poverty of the mineworkers, and the risks many of them run; our
602
low wage economy, which we hope to improve by membership of the E.E.C.; the decline of the coalmining industry, and of its relative importance in a modern industrial economy; the degree of efficiency of public sector industries; and, last but not least, the stubbornness of the Union Executive. I would not single out the actions of the Executive but for the fact that, since the result of the strike ballot was announced on December 2 last year, no opportunity has been given by it for moderate opinion in the membership to express its views, despite the Executive receiving two further improved offers from the Board since that date. Although the militant faction in the Union membership is not large—some 10,000 out of a total of about 280,000 mine workers, or 3½ per cent.—the militants comprise nearly 50 per cent. of the Executive and are able to control it; and the General Secretary, Mr. Daly, can truthfully be described as a militant.
What worries me about Mr. Daly's activities since December 2 is that he appears to have been digging in—in the military rather than the mining sense. He brought down harassing fire on any fresh approach from the Board. He quoted distorted figures to millions of viewers on television, apparently to gain sympathy for the miners. And his most constructive public contribution was to say that the strike will end when the Board accept the miners' claim—and that, in reply to the noble Lord, is the call for unconditional surrender.
I cannot believe that moderate opinion in the membership sees much merit in these tactics, or that it does not regret giving such wide powers to the Executive to take to the negotiating table. At that table the Union representatives turned down an offer which would have raised the gross rate at the lowest level to over £20 per week, out of which no man would have taken home less than £15 per week —and in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, about £18 a week, I will give details about take-home pay. In fact, if the offer had been accepted, the number taking home between £15 and £16 would be 3,000; the number taking home £16 would be 8,000, and the number taking home £17 would be 34,000, including the 11,000 already mentioned. Now

603
the T.U.C. urge that the minimum wage throughout industry should be £20 per week. They must surely rate this figure as a living wage; or are they suggesting that their members should receive less than a living wage? After taking into account allowances in kind, such as concessionary coal and housing, worth £2·13 tax-free per week, the mineworkers' average minimum wage would then be third in this league table, at over £22 per week (so I am a bit up on the noble Earl and well up on the noble Lord, Lord Blyton) and these earnings could have been improved if the productivity increase reached 3 cwt. more per shift. I think that the Executive underrated the productivity offer: but it is not generally realised outside industry how difficult productivity agreements are to negotiate, or to have measured and accepted on the shop floor or down the mine.
The gap between the improved offer and the Union's claim is still very wide —£6 per week for surface workers, £3·10 per week for face and contract workers and £7 a week for other underground workers. Because the gap will be so hard to bridge, I fear the strike is likely to be even more prolonged, ruinous to the industry, disastrous for the miners and a grievous blow to the national economy, unless moderates in the Union prevail over the militants. The point has already been reached where hardships must outweigh the possible gains; and I should like to mention and place on record that, despite this, it is to the very great credit of the miners that they have agreed to keep running essential supplies of coal to hospitals, and are still doing so.
I ask my noble friends and their right honourable friends in another place to take the initiative by appealing with all the media at their command over the heads of the militants to the great body of moderate opinion within the N.U.M. The public, too, are entitled to know the facts. Emotional response to the miners and sympathy with them has obscured the real issues. And if noble Lords doubt this, I ask them whether the mineworkers would still be receiving the same sympathy and attention from the public if they had accented the Board's 7·9 per cent. offer, like the gas operatives, who last week, instead of calling an
604
"inevitable" strike, accepted a 7½ per cent. offer with the minimum of publicity. Some people believe that public opinion will not be alienated from the militants until the effects of the strike and of coal shortages begin to bite. It would be heartless and senseless to wait for that to happen. The Government must act now with a view to winning over the public and men of moderation within the union. These last are the men to whom the country must look to end the strike, by their accepting that the Board's offer, or thereabouts, would be realistic and even fair having regard to the viability of the industry, and following upon a 12½ per cent. increase in wages last year.
Finally. I should like to say this to noble Lords opposite. I have no prejudices because my family on both sides were colliery owners. Incidentally, the Florence of Florence Colliery, Staffordshire, now so much in the news, was my great-aunt Florence Leveson-Gower. By coincidence, when I put my name forward to speak in this debate I received a thesis, 595 pages long, from a Mr. T. J. Raybould, prepared in 1970 for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of Kent, entitled, "The Dudley Estate—Its rise and its decline between 1774 and 1947". should like to quote one brief passage from it for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Milford:
"Economically the estate served as a buttress in times of depression—particularly in the extent to which it afforded credit to local iron-masters and mine tenants who would otherwis6 have gone into liquidation; creating further economic and social hardship. In an area which depended for its livelihood on such basic and complementary industries as coal and wrought iron. laissez faire for the employees of the Dudley Estate meant regular employment, relatively high wages, safe working conditions and no truck system. These factors served to Influence other coal and iron masters to the good."
The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, may accept, after hearing this comment from a disinterested party, that there was a tradition in my family up to nationalisation of caring for miners and their welfare. It is also a fact that my grandfather piloted the Workmen's Compensation Act through this House. So I speak to-day in full awareness and sympathy for the very real sufferings of coal miners and with the hope that my words will not exacerbate the dispute but serve to put some of its causes into proper perspective.
8.42 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl who has just spoken for not having heard the whole of his speech. I was called to a patient. When he hears that the patient was attending the Primrose League Dinner, I am sure he will forgive me. I gather from what he has been saying that he has been trying to explain to the House why the miners should not have an increase greater than the 7 per cent. that has been offered them. I thought that I heard him say as I came in that those who expect them to have more than 7 per cent. are militants. I can only say to the noble Earl that I must put myself in the category of "militant" because I want to put a case to the House which I believe is unanswerable.
There are certain aspects of the coal industry which make it unique in the industrial world. Those aspects are not being considered by the National Coal Board and are not being considered by the Government; and noble Lords like the noble Earl who has just spoken who know a lot about the mining industry brush them aside as though they are of little interest. I speak as a doctor. Frankly, I was astonished when I looked at television last week and saw Mr. Ezra, with a complete lack of understanding and compassion, say—and I wrote this down in my own home—that he wanted to run a successful enterprise, looked at entirely from the point of view of industry and what it can afford on the basis of improved productivity. He seemed to have forgotten that he is dealing with a notoriously hazardous occupation in which the workers are daily exposed to the risk of injury and even death and to the chance of contracting certain distressing diseases.
I think I am right when I say that this industry is unique in this respect. If there must be mining—and I deplore the fact that there is mining—and if the extraction of fuel must be done in this primitive fashion, we must recognise the human sacrifices entailed and endeavour however inadequately—and if they gave 8 per cent., 9 per cent., 10 per cent., 11 per cent., or 12 per cent. it would still be inadequate for this job—to compensate these men for the risks they run of injuries and permanent loss of health. The noble
606
EARL may say that if they do die of pneumoconiosis, then, so long as it is complete pneumoconiosis, their widows will be compensated in some small manner. But I am talking about the risks that these men face every day of their lives. Let us think of the beginning of their lives—and the noble Earl is familiar with the sight of the miners coming out of the pits. In the first place, for lack of alternative occupation, boys who still have three or four or five years to complete their growth are compelled to work in conditions which are calculated to stunt that growth; for in winter during their working days they may seldom see daylight. They may get up in darkness, work in darkness and go home in darkness. In the days of the noble Earl's grandfather these were 10 year olds or 12 year olds—tiny boys! Indeed, in the last century women crawled on their knees, naked, with chains round their waists. That was the consideration given by the coal owners of the past to the people in this industry!
Furthermore, my Lords, in what other occupation are the workers forced to toil in such cramped position, to assume such unnatural postures as they crawl along under the low roof? Is there another such industry? I say that this is unique. These conditions, combined with strenuous physical effort, are responsible for the high incidence of arthritis. What a simple disease, it may be said. My Lords, those who have had arthritis will know that it is accompanied by chronic pain for which doctors have not found a cure, chronic pain which accompanies the victim into his retirement. Then, during the whole of their lives—and this, I am sure, has been mentioned before—while they are compelled to tolerate these conditions there is the risk of accidents, of fire, of entombment and even of sudden death; because they are captive workers in a mining village which offers no alternative employment. Some go to other forms of employment; but most of these men have had to endure these appalling conditions because there is no alternative.
During the war the recognition of the dangerous character of mining led to conscripts being offered the alternative of working in the pits. What other industry was regarded as involving dangers equal to service in the front line? The noble

607
EARL and other noble Lords talked about keeping the increase to 7 per cent. I repeat: what other industry was regarded as involving dangers equal to service in the front line? Furthermore, I should like to know how death and disablement are costed in the accounts of the National Coal Board. Indeed, this question can be asked of industry as a whole; for the callous disregard of authority for those who work in industry is a national disgrace. More than 500 men lost their lives in industrial accidents in 1970; over 300,000 non-fatal accidents were reported to the factory inspectors. We moan and groan about men who strike and we say that the country is losing money; but the total number of working days lost through industrial injuries was nearly three times the number lost through industrial disputes and strikes. But management rarely concerns itself with this tragic picture because accident prevention does not improve the balance sheet, I know that there are a few outstanding exceptions; but how many managements are truly concerned with this loss of life? Surely—this seems to me a curious business contradiction—the effect of the maintenance of plant and machinery is to give a worthwhile return. We know that management devotes money to the upkeep of the machinery. Then why are human lives less valuable? The high cost of not caring results in expensive strikes, and one of those strikes we have to-day. But the public, the men and women I have asked, are in sympathy with the miners. The strike has resulted because there has not been sufficient caring for these men.
The House will forgive me if I give one or two other figures that I want to get on the record. The Factory Inspectorate report that in 1971 there were 69 fatal accidents in the mines, despite the fact that 600 pits have been closed. If I am wrong about that number, my miner friends will correct me. There were 600 pits closed, yet in 1971, when we are told that things are improving, 69 men lost their lives and there were 635 serious reportable accidents. The Chief Inspector of Mines reports that in 1968 there were 784 new cases of pneumoconiosis. The measure of this distressing and progressive disease may be assessed only by periodic X-rays. I would invite Mr.
608
Ezra and the Secretary of State to read and digest the contents of page 45 of Volume 1 of the latest Coal Board report before they again assert that productivity alone should determine the miner's reward for his services to the community.
The figures reveal—and I was shocked to read them, because we are always being told that things in the pits are much better (the noble Earl himself said so to-day)—that 26·6 per cent. of miners examined in West Wales and 20·9 per cent. in East Wales were suffering from some category of pneumoconiosis. In North Durham the figure was 15·9 per cent., in Doncaster 12 per cent. and in North Yorkshire 11 per cent. It is of little comfort to a miner to be told that dust standards have been set which should not be exceeded, when the effectiveness of these standards is unknown. I do not know whether the noble Earl knows this, but these standards have not been changed since 1949. Why is that? Where is all this caring we are told about? The dust standards in 1972 are the same as in 1949. Is it surprising that the degree of pneumoconiosis is so high?
The fact is that while there has been some improvement since twenty years ago, the rate of improvement has been slowed down by mechanisation. We shall be told about water which is used in the pits in order to reduce the incidence of dust. I have asked experts and I am told that, with mechanisation, the amount of dust has increased and the water has little effect. We hear a lot about water, just as we hear about pit baths, but when it comes to examining the incidence of disease among miners we see a shocking report. I would just say this to noble Lords: that while pit baths may provide a nice debating point and allow the miner to clean his skin and make himself look much sweeter when he goes home to his wife, unfortunately science has not devised any means whereby the dust in a man's lungs may be washed out. That dust is killing men to-day as it did 25, 50 and 100 years ago. That, my Lords, is why I say to the House that this industry is unique. The National Coal Board and the Government should have compassion and recognise that, and increase the miserable sum which they are now offering to these fine men.
8.55 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, because I went out for a moment during her speech. But I have sat through, I should think, over 90 per cent. of the debate so far and I have found it fascinating, loaded with facts which it would bore the House to reiterate. But facts are not really the anatomy of truth; it is the interpretation of them that counts. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, made an excellent and constructive suggestion at the end of his speech which I hope I may remember to come back to. I have heard it said that we cannot deal with history, and that all these things are past. But that is a ridiculous attitude because it is as a result of history that we are suffering from many of the problems confronting the Coal Board to-day. Take the establishment and the nationalisation of the pits. I had the honour to be a Member of the House of Commons when the pits were nationalised. I had the honour to be a member of the Turner Committee and, with my colleague who has passed away, who was then the honourable Member for Abertillery, George Dunhill, I went round all the mining areas of Britain to study this mighty problem of mining subsidence and the rack and ruin it created in the industrial areas.
I pick up one constructive suggestion from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield about the Turner Committee's Report. I do not wish to sound pompous, but I may say, having been a member of that Committee, that we travelled round the countryside for two years and we produced a Report very quickly. We visited the areas of local authorities which have suffered from mining subsidence, including Dudley and the famous area there which has made a great contribution to British engineering and mining. We saw how local authorities in whose area coal was produced had suffered as the result of damage to properties, including homes, farms and mansions. I suggested, and the suggestion was followed up, that this debt should be borne by the country generally.
I was fortunate enough to live in the mountains above the smoke. We were farmers and colliers but we brought the lovely pit ponies up to the farms when there were strikes. I liked that, but I
610
did not then realise the bitter heritage of strikes. I sincerely believe that some Government—the Labour Government should have done it—should look again at the Turner Committee Report, and take from every ton of coal the cost of mining subsidence. I will pick up a constructive part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, which I liked. The noble Earl suggested that it might be worth while if we could do for the miners what is done for the farmers. I am interested in farming and the Annual Price Review. What is there to stop the trade union movement, the Coal Board, the Government and others who are interested from looking at the pros and cons and the cost of coal every year, and producing an annual review of our coal prices? This might give great satisfaction to the Miners' Union as it does to the Farmers' Union.
I should like to pick up another point made in the debate which I think needs emphasising. No matter how much we ululate, we have no fuel policy. For all the talk and for all the Governments which have been in power since the public ownership of the mines, we have not had the courage to work out a national fuel policy. I want to remind my noble friend Lord Blyton that he led a delegation to Europe, and I was with him, in connection with the Steel and Coal Community. He was very knowledgeable on this matter. I put all my cards on the table, for I was against going into the Community, but I was not against gaining much of the constructive knowledge which evolved from it. It was evident then that we should have been working—most of my noble friends who are Europeans and I—towards that Community and pressing for a national fuel policy or a European policy.
Nearly all the statistics have been given in the debate to-day. A mistake was made in that White Paper. Those of us who know something about the industry were against limitation and the rapid closing down of pits. They were closed down almost like a concertina. We have suffered as a consequence because someone had the bright idea that North Sea gas and supplies of oil would be cheap for ever. They must have travelled, but probably they were blind to the facts of life. As someone said

611
the other night, the Arab will not for ever live in a tent. That is a loose expression, but it summarises the problem of oil throughout the world, for the Arab wants to have a higher standard of life.
Now I have to criticise the society in which we live. We live in an acquisitive society and the answers have never been found. It is no good looking back into history. I will tell the House what I was reading last night, digging for gold in the old Macmillan Report, the May Report of 1931 and the famous finance report in which Ernie Bevin gave information to trade unions in 1931. That could have been written to-day. There was the same problem of coal and productivity and no one has come up with the answers.
We have reached a time in society, call it by any ism or asm or any ology one likes, when mankind is forced to look at the organisation of production on planned lines. I shall not use the word "socialism". The United States of America is forced to do this and also the European Economic Community. In other words, the old laissez-faire system of society is as dead as the dodo if mankind wants to survive. I shall not go into the modern "in"phrases about Doomwatch and all, that, but that is true about pollution and what is going on. I ask myself, what is the problem? We can spike it down to find the answer. It is a simple question, but the trouble with simple questions is that they are always difficult to answer.
The coal industry last year produced 133,000,315 tons of coal at an average price of £5·84 a ton, and coal is costing some people £20 a ton. People are crying out about the price of a bag of coal for old age pensioners. Why cannot the miners get a living wage? I was surprised to hear the tycoon of the Savings Certificates, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, give a dissertation on how much a man can live on and the comforts of working in a pit. He was down one, but I bet it was not when there was machinery in it, for it would have frightened him to death. We now have 34,500 miners on £18 a week, 29,000 on £19 a week, 5,800 craftsmen on £21·70, 7,400 ultra craftsmen on £23·62 and 10.500 men in the pits on £22·75. After January 1, under
612
parity there would have been 25,000 men on £30 a week but they would be in good places. There is the truth about wages. That is the maximum. Can they earn more by overtime and by getting nystagmus or more dust? I was glad that my noble friend spoke about pneumoconiosis. for 26 per cent. of the 7,443 men in the West Wales area, where some of the toughest coal in the world is produced get pneumoconiosis while working with machinery.
It was very unfair of a noble Lord, for whom we all have great respect and who has done a good job for the nation in National Savings—and I have just as much right to make cracks about that as anyone has to make cracks about "sentimental tones"used by my noble friend Lord Shinwell and others who have devoted their lives to these problems. If we find stiff-necked attitudes over these problems I have as much right to criticise them as others have to criticise what they call an over-sentimental attitude. The noble Lord even brought in the National Savings certificates. My noble friend Lord Maelor and I know that when those certificates were first introduced, many miners collected them with their miner's lamp. They were collected to pay a little mortgage on a house, sometimes £100 or £200 a house. I sometimes saw what happened to those savings. When I was about seven years of age—I shall remember this to my dying day —I was up in St. Gwynedd and three of my uncles were down the pit. We were up on the side of the mountain and we could almost look down into the pit. My aunt was in bed dying of cancer and my mother was nursing her. Four hundred and eight-nine men were killed there. Before very long that mountain was black with women waiting to make inquiries and for their men to come up out of the pit.
I want to see a more humane attitude in the Coal Board. We are getting so used to slide-rules, computers and graphs that human beings are becoming just dots on a logarithmic graph. I want to introduce into the Coal Board the right of miners' wives to ask where their Tom, Bill or Harry is if he has not come up after there has been a fall in the pit. In Stoke-on-Trent on New Year's Day some years ago I heard of wives being told to apply to Birmingham to find out

613
what had happened in a local pit. I hope that noble Lords will see what I am driving at. We must move the Coal Board from its smooth, high, haughty attitude towards the industry as a whole when it says, "Look at the statistics". I want to know how my brother Tom is if he is down the pit and has not come up after 24 hours. It is these simple things. Let us decentralise some of the human side of it, and we shall get a better attitude among the miners.
Lastly, I come to the Common Market —and nobody has mentioned this yet. It has been the policy to hive off anything in a public industry that is making money. The Labour Government were a bit frightened about it, but this Government have gone further. I think it was absolutely disgraceful, for instance, shoving back to public enterprise the poor little pubs in Carlisle. To think that a mighty Government would waste their time on a thing like that! But to-day, in the mines, we are not allowing the mines to develop and invent their own types of machinery to combat mining subsidence. They wanted to do it. They were stopped sometimes from doing their own repairs on mining subsidence, and they sub-contracted. In other words, in an area where mining subsidence was rife, much of the work was put out to private enterprise. The Coal Board could have saved tens of thousands of pounds if they had been allowed to do the job themselves. These factors are worth noting.
This is something that must be borne in mind when we go into the Common Market, because the European Community do not allow their pits to produce their own machinery; neither shall we be allowed to produce our own machinery. Much of the direction of these pits in Britain—and this should be seen to before we go into the Common Market—will come under the control of Brussels as a result of the Paris Treaty and as a result of our going into the Common Market. Consequently, we should be hammering away for a European and a national fuel policy. We talk about Europe and Britain: the European Coal and Steel Community, between 1952 and 1961, provided 121,593,713 dollars to re-employ 360,369 workers, of whom 310,252 were colliers. Why do I give those figures? I do it so that we should not isolate ourselves and pretend that we are the only people who evolved a system of sub-
614
sidising miners who moved when pits were closed. Do I make my point clear? In other words, the European Coal and Steel Community had a policy of ameliorating and easing the burden of the movement of miners inside their area. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 227,733 colliers in Germany were subsidised in that way, and some 79,000 in Belgium were helped in the same way. In other words, this is not just something that a Labour Government have done. That backs up the statement I made earlier in this speech, that we have reached an age where we must plan. Even acquisitive nations like Germany, France and Belgium have had to deal with this problem in a special way.
We are asked why we should treat the mining industry in a special way. My noble friend Lady Summerskill has given some facts: out of 280,000 in the pits, according to the Report before the present one, 82,213 had industrial injuries requiring them to be away from work for more than three days. Out of more than 280,000 underground workers, 82,000, in rough figures, were away last year for more than three days, not because they were "tight"or went to the rugger match at Cardiff Arms Park or were watching rugby league, but because they were injured. So when we are asked why they should have special treatment, it is because during one year of work one-third of them have three days at least, and some three weeks, away from work through injury in the pit. It is different from other industry. When I look at my television I see a strong, clean-limbed boy learning how to use a tank as he should, and getting good money for it; and the caption suggests joining the Army for £18, £19, £20 and upwards a week. As was rightly and aptly pointed out by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, during the war the only job—with farming—that Bevin boys were allowed to go into was the pits, because of the danger of the occupation.
In other words we agreed then that it was a special occupation, and I think 90 per cent. of British people who know the mining industry or who have been anywhere near it would not resent the fact if any Government, be it Labour or Conservative, had the courage to re-assess the entire economy and even the Act. Because under that Act the Coal Board were placed in an invidious position. I

615
heard one noble Lord talk about business. The first Coal Board Report in 1946, from which I shall now read, made this point on page 125:
"A joint stock company could have covered part of the deficit on colliery workings by not distributing any dividends, but this expedient was not allowed to the Coal Board. The Coal Board must make repayments of capital and interest to the Government each year, whether good or bad."
That should be eradicated from the public ownership Act.
I have spoken long enough, but I should have liked to analyse the whole position of the thousand million pounds or more that the Coal Board have had to pay out since 1946 on interest or dues, of which only £415 million, in a lump, more or less, was given only a year ago. However, I must not bore the House, and somewhere or other in some of the excellent speeches that we have heard to-day these figures may be found. What I am pleased about is that on both sides of the House there is great sympathy for these men, and I hope that noble Lords, never mind the semantics, will understand the humanity and the heart that lie behind the Motion moved by my noble friend to-night.
9.17 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who is one of the most stimulating speakers in the House, I have to change from top gear down to second gear, otherwise I fall flat on my face. There is only one thing in his speech with which I disagreed and that was that he said that nobody had mentioned the Common Market. I can name three of my noble friends who did so. Now to my own speech. I think we must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, for giving us this opportunity for discussing this serious current crisis. I will reiterate —it cannot be reiterated too often—that this House is extremely fortunate in having so many noble Lords who have so much mining experience. The reason for my brief intervention is that for six years I was privileged to be what is known as "a working man" and a trade union member. Therefore I have not found it difficult to see how this strike has come about, even though I do not agree with the precise wording of this Motion. There must be very few coal miners who elect to go down the mines
616
from choice, because the work is very dirty, dangerous and unhealthy. It is a declining industry with many pits being closed, and it must be very frustrating and unnerving not to know when your turn is coming and whether you are going to be out of a job or will have to travel a great distance to go to one.
In the mining communities there are very few alternative forms of employment. although steps are being taken to overcome this state of affairs. I was very privileged a few years ago to stay on several occasions with a miner and his wife in a small mining village in County Durham—or rather a mining village with a redundant pit—and I was very much struck (and I do not wish to sound pompous) with the high standard of sincerity and moral behaviour of this community, which seemed to be very far removed from the so-called permissive society in which we live and about which there is so much discussion. It was like going to another world. It is not for me to go into the intricate dealings and negotiations which finally brought matters to a head: this ground has been very fully covered already, with far too many statistics, if I may say so. At this point I would only say what a pity it was that the Unions did not feel in a position to go to arbitration. That was first said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; but the strike is now with us and indeed is now into its fourth week. Therefore we must all strive for a return to work as soon as possible. I know that that is a mundane phrase but it can bear repeating.
I should now like to move on to a very different subject and I hope that it will be treated in a realistic and enlightened manner. I am not condoning the action of the union leaders in perpetrating this situation, but I wish to consider the logic which underlies it. The subject is that of picketing, which has caused so much criticism. When a body of men decide to take strike action they intend to make it as effective as possible and to cause the biggest impact, which is quite understandable. One of the ways to do this is to picket. In the case of the miners, there has been little need to picket the mines themselves because there has been a near 100 per cent., if not 100 per cent., stoppage. The union leaders have seen fit to pay travelling and out-of-pocket

617
expenses to enable miners to picket. There again, one may not agree with this, but one cannot criticise the miners for taking full advantage of the facilities offered. I hope your Lordships will take this as being sincere: I am not being facetious when I say that there is little to do if one is on strike at this time of the year. There is nothing to do in the garden; little point in taking a holiday, but it is worse still to spend time drinking in pubs or clubs.
Man possesses a warlike instinct within him to protect his rights and even to fight for them. You can hardly expect him to sit at home twiddling his thumbs when he can be with his friends fighting for his cause in picketing power stations and the like. It is very unpleasant, admittedly, for those who are trying to earn their living to be hampered by pickets. Therefore they have to be protected, and the country has to subsidise the extra police detailed to do it. When a man's blood is up it is not easy to calm him down. I fear that we sometimes brush this fact aside. But the tragic part of all this is that in the end the miners will achieve so little. If they could achieve a little more out of it they might ease their consciences and satisfy themselves that the strike was worth while; but it will take years to put everything right. There is another point which has been mentioned briefly; that is, that the shopkeepers and the middle men in the mining areas have also suffered. They are innocent bystanders and should be given a thought.
I am fully aware of the awkward position in which trade union leaders find themselves in being pressed by their militant members into taking strike action. I once took part in a one-day strike over a minor point, and one gets very much into the swim of it. If one's leader does not support one's interest, one thinks him weak and vacillating; but a trade union leader is a leader, and he has to be a very superior leader. He has got to be more of a leader than the highest management, and he has to have a public relations ability. I know that he does not have to show a profit in figures, but he has to show a profit to his members and fight for substantial pay increases and better conditions for the employees.
618
It is true that there has not been an official strike in the mines for nearly 46 years. One is also aware that in the past decade or so, and probably for the next two decades or so, life will continue to be disturbed in the mining areas until only the profitable coal mines will be worked, and new industries will take their place. It is always better if there is a variety of employment to choose from. I was talking only recently to a man who originally came from County Durham—I am sorry to quote the same county twice—who is now a security man in London. He said that he did not know that jobs such as he was doing now existed. In his youth the only jobs were in the mines or the Co-operative store. Those who worked in the Co-operative store considered themselves superior—and I speak with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques; I mean no disrespect to him—and would not speak to the miners, even if they had been to school with them.
My Lords, one can never be sure whether deep down a strike becomes a show of distaste towards a Government and a political Party that the strikers dislike rather than a desire to uplift the miners' wages. Obviously, a sweeping statement like that has to be qualified at once, and one must quickly say that there were many periods of industrial unrest in the past two Administrations when the political Party of their alliance was in power. That was mainly due to the prices and incomes policy of that Administration, which was very unpopular with the trade union movement. We must now face the fact that although prices continue to rise—and some other noble Lords have mentioned this—they are not rising at such an alarming rate. We can feel confident that we are coming round the corner. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made many reflationary moves and one can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that he is going to make more soon. We are very conscious of the high unemployment figures, but this is not the day to go into that question. We may be able to do so very soon and I gather the matter is on the Order Paper. But whatever political persuasion we may support and whatever feelings we may have, we must continue talking, something which there has been rather a lack of. It was impossible to understand there

619
could be any reason why my right honourable friend the Minister of Employment and Productivity was refusing at the beginning of this dispute to intervene and help, when his impartiality in previous disputes has been recognised by all as being sincere and genuine, without question.
There is one point I should like to clear up for the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, who is going to follow me. I would have done as she did had I been sitting on the Benches opposite when my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing was speaking. I refer to the question of take-home pay and hours of work. I always think it is invidious and it is a question concerning Government, civil servants and the like. One cannot equate take-home pay and hours of work with an actual basic week. If one wants to make comparisons one must be careful how that is done. I have been careful in my, I hope, short speech not to go into statistics. One can twist anything with statistics. I suppose one could make vague comparisons, but I do not like doing that. Food prices are more or less the same up and down the country, but property prices and rents vary. That is the only thing I should like to say on that point; but I will agree with the noble Baroness and shall be very interested to listen to her speech when she tells us about these figures. Far be it from me, my Lords, to give advice to anybody, but I plead with everybody—the miners and the leaders of the miners, whatever political opinions they may have—for the country's sake, to let us get talking quick and fast.
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, it is sometimes customary when making a speech in this House for a Member to declare his or her interest. My interest in the coalmining industry is that I was born in a Yorkshire mining town; I have lived all my life in the same town; I still live there and travelled from there this morning. We have had some excellent speeches to-day, particularly that from my noble friend Lord Blyton, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell who said that some of the speeches we have heard have been rather academic. I must say that if I could have brought some of my miners down here with me
620
to-day, they would have thought that some of the speeches we have heard were rather irrelevant to the problems which are facing them to-day.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said that he had no prejudices because he came from a family of mine owners. My Lords, in this matter I have prejudices because my father was a miner and for nearly thirty years was trade union secretary for over 3,000 miners. I have grown up with the problems of the mining industry. I was a schoolgirl during the 1926 strike and can remember vividly my mother getting up at about six o'clock in the morning to go to the local working men's club to cut sandwiches to give to the children as they went into school. I can remember my father getting an agreement with a friendly trawler owner to let him have fish twice a week so that we could sell fish at a penny a pound twice a week from our small garden. These are the kind of memories I have. But the mining communities have always been tightly-knit. They have always helped each other since long before there was any social security or a National Health Service. My home was always a cross between a citizen's advice bureau and a welfare department, and occasionally it was a clothes shop as well (a clothes shop, not a closed shop) when my father gave out boots. He also ran a miners' convalescent scheme and he had to be something of a medical man as well in order to go out and buy the limbs, because there was nowhere else in those days for the miners to get their limbs if they were unfortunate in having an accident at work. I remember, too, that in a shed attached to our house we always kept two invalid carriages for use by miners who needed them.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said that it was his grandfather, I think, who introduced the Workmen's Compensation Act, and he was very proud of that. It may be that in its day it was very good, but I am much more proud of the fact that it was a Labour Government which abolished the old Workmen's Compensation Act and substituted the Industrial Injuries Act. I know from experience that mine owners in the past were insured against accidents, and so the poor unfortunate miner had to deal with an

621
insurance company, whose agents sometimes got the miners to sign away, for perhaps £50, an injury which meant the loss of a limb.
I started teaching in Featherstone, which has a name in mining history, because it was there, many years ago, that the troops opened fire on the strikers. But in the 'thirties in the Featherstone mining community 73 per cent. of the boys in my school were suffering from malnutrition. Noble Lords may think that this is past history, and that in 1972 it has nothing to do with the present position; but it has to do with the present position because we cannot discuss the coal industry in isolation from its history. Even the young miner of to-day who was born after the 1926 strike is conscious of this history. The young miner belongs to generations of miners, with son following father arid, before pit closures, usually into the same pit. It is difficult for them, and it is difficult for me and others of my colleagues on these Benches, to see the present situation in terms of percentages and profit and loss. Before the War the miners were low paid; they were on short-time working, working three days a week. Then, during the War, when coal was so vital, the miner was an important person; and after the War the wages rose. Miners then were among the better paid workers: conditions improved, welfare was better, there were pithead baths, there was a National Health Service and the Industrial Injuries Act. But then, with the contraction of the industry and closures, the position changed considerably. Since 1951, the number of miners working in our pits has been reduced from 600,000 to 280,000.
I wish to stress again something which has already been stressed from this side of the House; namely, that the miners co-operated in all this change. The older miners accepted redundancy payments so that the younger miners could stay in the pits, and some of the young miners were willing to be uprooted and to travel to other areas in order to get other jobs. But while conditions have changed over the years mining is still an arduous job; it is still an unpleasant and a dirty job, and it is still a dangerous one. The miner still has to go into the bowels of the earth, for long hours without any daylight. As
622
my noble friend Lady Summerskill has pointed out, he still gets the miners' lung disease of pneumoconiosis, and miners are still killed or maimed for life.
My noble friend gave some figures about this, and I want to give a few more. In 1971, 92 men were killed in the mines, and since 1947 6,500 men have been killed. Since 1947, 860 miners have died with pneumoconiosis. Since 1947 40,000 miners have been seriously injured and maimed, and since 1947 48,000 miners have been seriously disabled with pneumoconiosis. Near my home there is a disabled miners' centre which I have visited from time to time, and one of the sad things is to see those miners who were so healthy and vigorous and strong being brought every day on crutches and in chairs in their little buses in order to get together and do some handicrafts. In my time I have been to practically every miners' rally in the country, Durham, Yorkshire and many others, and I have always enjoyed it, but again one of the sad things is to see the rows of disabled miners sitting in their invalid chairs. You would not see this at any rally of any other industry in the country. As my noble friend has said, this is the price of mining.
For this job, difficult as it is, unhealthy as it is, and dangerous as it is, what is the miner paid? There have been conflicting statements about this. Some people have been quoting gross wages. Take home pay has been quoted, and earnings. But we have to get one or two things clear. There are standard wages for surface men and underground workers, with certain craftsmen getting a little more, and with the power loading men getting more than that. But there are no bonuses, no piece work, and the only way that any man who works either on top of the mine or below the mine can earn more than the standard wage is by working overtime. That is the fact. And to work overtime down a mine is much more arduous than to work overtime in any other industry.
What is the normal wage? For many underground it is £20 gross, some of them only £19, and for surface workers £18. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to my intervention when the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was speaking. The Coal Board have issued some figures purporting to show how well paid

623
miners are. In its statement it said that for the week ending October 9 the gross average wage for a surface worker was £25·10. But the basic rate for a surface worker is £18 a week, so they must have worked 12 hours overtime, or in other words 10 hours a day, in order to get the princely sum of £25·10. The week that was quoted was, I believe—if I am wrong I can be corrected—the week before there was an overtime ban, when miners were in fact working more overtime than they usually do.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if I may intervene, this is a great mystery, and I hope that the noble Baroness can throw some light on it. The National Coal Board in their last report, Table 2, show 1971 average weekly earnings—that is, presumably, every man in the mine—of £27·05. At the same time there was, I think, a figure of 19·2 per cent. absenteeism. How on earth do these figures tally up with what the noble Baroness has been saying? I cannot understand it.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I do not understand it either, but I have something here which might be more conclusive than the average and percentage figures in the Coal Board Report. I was just coming to this. Last weekend I asked some of my miner friends to give me their wage slips. Lots were forthcoming. I could have had hundreds to bring down here to-day, but I have just brought a handful. Some of them are for surface wages and some of them are underground.
A NOBLE LORD: How late?
BARONESS BACON: These are all in the last few weeks.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that some statutory overtime is, by contract, always worked. It is part of the agreement when miners sign on. So this is after the overtime ban, which is really an artificial condition.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, it is not an artificial condition; it is exactly what the miners earn, and these are their wages slips. These are based on a week's work. If noble Lords opposite are trying to say that a man has to go down into the bowels of the earth for ten hours a day five days a week in order to get a decent wage, then of course that is quite
624
a different argument. I have these wages slips here, and the gross pay on every one of these—
A NOBLE LORD: What dates?
BARONESS BACON: They are different dates. Not one of these reaches £21 gross pay. I will quote from only three of them. This one is a surface worker; £18 a week gross. Out of that he has to pay his National Insurance payments, and so on. To be fair, I am giving gross wages and not take-home pay. This £18 is gross; and this man has two children. Another one, an underground man has a gross pay of £20·17. He has his stoppages after that. This man has three children, lives in a council house, the rent of which is £3·25 a week, and his bus fares cost him 50p a week in order to get to work. Another man, working underground, only £19 gross a week. This man has four children at school, and his rent is £3·25 a week. This is what we are talking about. We are not talking about percentages and profit and loss, but what the miners are thinking about. They have their families to keep on this amount of money.
My noble friend Lord Blyton pointed out that workers are eligible for family incomes supplement if their gross earnings are less than £18 a week for a man and wife with one child, and less than £20 a week for a man and wife and two children. I never thought when this Government introduced the family incomes supplement that' people like miners would be eligible for it.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has quoted a lot of cases, but unless the National Coal Board are just plain lying in their statistical tables, which is very difficult to believe, how on earth can the average cash earnings in 1971 for all miners be £27·05p per week if the figures that the noble Baroness is giving are typical? It must mean that many miners are earning £40 or £50 a week to create the average.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I cannot speak for the Coal Board figures. What I have given are the actual wages of the men who are working in the area where I live. Those are the actual pay slips, and this is what it is all about.
A NOBLE LORD: Do they include absenteeism?
BARONESS BACON: These are for a full week's work in every case, and not absenteeism. If the noble Lord would like to see these pay slips afterwards he can do so. The names and addresses of the men are on them, although I am not going to quote them. These are the pay slips, and I could have brought hunderds more like them. The miners feel that they are slipping behind in pay increases over the last few years. I will not quote figures because I have taken longer than I intended to do because of the interruptions, but the latest offer by the Coal Board was £2 and £1·90 a week, at a cost of £31 million.
A good deal has been said during this debate about the interest payments of £33·6 million a year which the Coal Board has to make, and I feel that this could be written off. A point which needs to be made is that in a contracting industry, such as mining has been over the last few years, such a payment is a bigger drain than it was when the industry was bigger. What the Government have to do is to equate the cost of giving the miners a living wage with the cost of this strike in the loss of production, in the loss of equipment and machinery, and in the losses that there will be if other industries are affected. It is clear to us all that the Coal Board's hands are tied, and only the Government can break the deadlock. I believe that the miners are a special case and, after all the arguments that have been used to-day, they ought to be treated as such. I believe that there must be a new offer to the miners which they can accept with dignity.
9.46 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, in opening the debate on this subject in another place the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry paid a kind tribute to the miners and referred to the dangers of the men working in coal mines. I am sure that most of us here can echo his words, but words, however kind, are not enough. It is very obvious that the Coal Board have been confined to the limits set by the Government for industry in general, without regard to the future of the coal industry itself. There are no differentials, no priorities, and the lowest paid worker in a multiple baker's is higher paid than the lowest paid miner. Any increase is based on existing rates, regardless of any apparent importance of the future of this
626
key industry to our economy. One of the purposes of the timely Motion of my noble friend Lord Blyton, for which we thank him, is to draw attention to the inevitably serious consequences to our economic life if this strike is allowed to go on much further. It is therefore the duty of everyone in your Lordships' House, who has been in any way connected with the industry, to highlight the dangers which we are facing. The public will remain indifferent until they are personally affected, and by the time that happens the damage could be on a disastrous scale.
The whole technique of coalmining has altered so much that entirely new skills have replaced those of the pick and shovel era. The conditions of work are such that they cannot be described in words. Whereas in the pre-nationalisation period a man's tools were simple, men are to-day operating anything up to £250,000 worth of sophisticated machinery in the highly dangerous, confined space of a mechanised coal face, amid noise and coal dust. The car worker earning over £40 a week, working in air-conditioned, well-lit surroundings, is not in any physical danger as are the highly skilled men working at the coal face, who get from £5 to £10 less pay—about the same as a shorthand-typist in the City. Enough has been said about comparisons, but I should like to point out that, of all the 124 lowest grade workers in the league table in which miners appear as 17th, not one has the hazards which miners have to face. In fact, if the hazards of the whole lot were put together there would still be no comparison.
My noble friend Lord Maelor has quoted the figures of accidents over the last 23 years. I want to emphasise his reference to the increasing danger from coal dust. With the continual demand for increased production mechanised coalmining will have to become a young man's industry, and soon the problem will be to find the young men willing to risk their lives, or to become physical wrecks in their early thirties. They are more likely to say, "To hell with coal-mining". The problem is already on our doorstep. Only those who have worked in coal mines know something of the degradation which it generates. You feel inferior, as one speaker said earlier on. It is only the wonderful

627
community life which saves one's self-respect. Without being at all facetious, I would suggest that our political leaders could gain tremendous experience, add very much to their prestige and help to re-establish good relations with the coal miners by spending, during the Recess, one full working week helping to run a mechanised coal face, the next week to be spent on the duties undertaken by the lowest paid underground worker. That fortnight would provide an insight which no lengthy reports or pictures could ever convey. The much-publicised conducted tours are always a waste of time: I have taken too many people around myself. During another Recess I would suggest at least a week in an industry where the rate for the lowest grade manual worker is higher than the miners'. There are at least 16 of them, ranging from the top lowest grade manual worker in civil air transport, who gets £25 a week, to the lowest paid manual worker curing bacon, who gets the same as the lowest paid manual mineworker. This is in the £16 and £17 class. The political leaders who are ready to accept this challenge will also set a pattern lacking in our top industrialists—one which could not easily be ignored—as a sincere effort to establish communications.
My Lords, I repeat that I am not being facetious, and I claim to speak from adequate experience of the effect of sincere personal contacts. I am personally concerned with the welfare of 10,000 employees at the moment, and I think I know what I am talking about. In pre-nationalisation days a colliery manager had to be a lickspittle to the hoard of directors and a hard taskmaster to his men if he wanted to keep his job. Is the policy of the Government to turn the Boards of nationalised industries into catspaws by the introduction of Bills such as the Coal Industry Bill, limiting the Boards' activities? I seem to remember similar measures in reference to the Post Office. The pattern is becoming familiar —too familiar. The whole relationship between management and labour built up over the years is just disintegrating. This is a fight which can disintegrate not only the coal industry but the whole of our economic future as well. The N.C.B.'s forward development plans for the next five years will be demolished, and it will
628
still be their responsibility to produce enough coal to supply 50 per cent. of all our energy requirements.
My Lords, bitterness is now being generated by the Government's determination to treat every industry alike, with an increase limited to 7 or 8 per cent. regardless of priority. It is insanity. The action of the N.U.M. reflects this bitterness, by their refusal to provide safety cover for 133 out of the total of 289 pits. In addition, a further 118 are only partly covered; and to-day we have heard that only 31 pits are covered. Safety cover includes operating pumps, maintaining the intricate ventilation systems and the heat generated in every coal mine, with the consequent danger of fire. Once a fire starts, if it is not brought under control it can be the death knell of a colliery. I know something about it: when I was a youngster I was in charge of rescue teams when 200 men lost their lives in the main colliery disaster at Neath. My Lords, if this strike goes on for the predicted six months, it will he a major disaster. Those who saw the David Frost programme last night from Blaen Rhondda could not have failed to be impressed by the sincerity and deep emotional reaction to the attitude of the Government, particularly by the wives. Make no mistake about it, the fact is that the N.C.B. are giving the impression of being a catspaw in this dispute. The colliery manager is in danger of sharing the stigma, and relations between management and labour can easily slip back to those of 50 years ago. As an old mining engineer, I know something about the feeling of being crushed between two forces while carrying out plain duties. A mining engineer is different from other industrial managers; he lives and works with his men. When there is danger he is there, and not in a distant office.
If we go into the Common Market we shall be producing a tonnage of coal in the United Kingdom equivalent to all the present Six, or near it, with far greater reserves than they possess. The time has therefore come to insist on a real fuel policy for the next 20 years, by which time the known oil reserves will be nearly exhausted but the coal reserves will not —far from it! I suggest that the industry requires a drastic reconstruction starting

629
at the bottom and restoring the miners' status to the top of the wages league. The next objective is the elimination of all danger from dust as a pre-requisite to greater production. At the same time a full-scale independent inquiry at the highest level should examine the organisation of the industry from the whole set up at Hobart House to the coal face and to include a report on the dictatorial, academic attitude of the N.C.B. Chairman and that of the Government. One other thing is vitally necessary. It is up to the Government to prove to the young miner of to-morrow that a career in coal-mining will provide lifelong security and a reward commensurate with the danger to life and health which such a hazardous occupation will always entail.
My Lords, the writing is on the wall. No longer is there an unlimited reservoir of labour willing, because of lack of alternatives, to spend their working lives in a coal mine. This fact must be borne in mind when the new policy and philosophy for the industry is created. We must remember that economic miracles cannot be achieved by dictatorial edicts, but they can be achieved through inspired leadership in the co-ordination of management and labour.
In the early 1920s, thousands of men left the coalfields—I was one—and went off to mine china clay in Cornwall. I refused to go back in the late 'twenties although I was offered the management of two collieries. This exodus will occur again. I have always kept in touch with the coal industry and I know it can have a splendid future. The reserves are there and we are yet only on the threshold of discovering the full value of this unique commodity. But the industry requires an entirely new philosophy, new attitudes and new men at the top, in Government and in the National Coal Board, before our young men will again regard coalmining as their future.
9.59 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, the House has listened to the noble Lord with great interest. He made some very constructive suggestions towards the end of his speech. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blyton: the House is indebted to him for initiating this debate. Although he is an old friend he would not expect me on this occa-
630
sion to agree with the terms of his Motion.
It is a terrible thing to think that this strike has now embarked on its fourth week. I well remember in the House of Commons twenty-five years ago when the industry was being nationalised we were told that when the nation owned the coal and operated the mines there would be no more strikes. That is not so, my Lords. The nationalised industries have their problems just like the private sector. I agree entirely with what has been said about the conditions of work in this industry. They are dangerous, and there is little to be said for them. I should like to remind your Lordships that there is another job which, I think, is equally dangerous and difficult, that of a deck hand on a distant fishing fleet trawler. That is a smaller industry, but such men are usually away from home for anything from twenty-one to twenty-eight days. They get frostbitten and soaked to the skin and they are out of their beds every night. At least a coal miner usually gets to his own home and bed. But conditions have improved in the trawling industry and, to some extent, in the coal mines. In the main, the coal industry has a very good record, but for twenty years the miners have seen their industry running down. It is not a very pleasant way to live, to be working in an industry where you do not know what security you have. I should like to see a longterm plan, for as long as may be, outlining the future for those who work in the mining industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, talked about a fuel policy. Fifteen or twenty years ago it was not possible to have such a policy. Then we did not have natural gas and we did not know what would be the oil supplies from our own coastline. But now the whole situation has changed. We know that there will be a considerable amount of oil coming from off the North-East coast of Britain. Is it not time that we had a real national fuel policy? If the coal industry has to be run down even more, the miners have a right to know. In that respect, I think that we have to be absolutely fair. The industry has been run down from something like 600 pits to 300. Of course, the coal industry has to compete with natural gas, nuclear energy and oil.

631
Many figures have been given to-day from speakers on both sides of the House and there have been quotations from the Coal Board Report and references to miners' pay slips. I think that most people are pretty disappointed when they see their pay slips, but I wonder whether my noble friend could publish something in the OFFICIAL REPORT which would be understandable and authentic, giving the average wage for the various grades of workers.
Annual productivity in the coal industry has improved something like 50 per cent. in the last ten years and that compares well with any other industry. Of course economics come into it, as was shown during the debate. The industry has been given the vital help which it had to have if it was to survive. There have been capital write-offs and so on. We have had the same thing in respect of the air Corporations. B.O.A.C. had £120 million written off and B.E.A. £80 million. We had the same thing, to some extent, in the private sector with Rolls-Royce in the last year. Occasionally in the national interest it is necessary to inject public money into industry. Economics comes into this problem. Before the coal strike the Coal Board was something like £35 million in debt. There was another £26 million deficit before the strike started and the stoppage is costing something like £10 million a week and probably more.
As I understand it, there is an offer of £2 a week, back-dated to November 1 last, for 121,000 miners; secondly, there is an offer of £1·90, backdated, for all other adult workers; and, thirdly, an increase for juvenile workers. We have been told that if productivity could be increased that would be fine; that they could accept something and next November that could be back-dated to January 1, 1972. I think there is a case for the mining industry and the distant water fishing industry to be treated preferentially. They are both vital industries for us. Probably the coal mining industry has to be run down over the years, although we were told by Lord Robens in his maiden speech a few weeks ago that there is a great future for the coal industry in the Common Market. I think he said that there could be exports to the value of something like £150 million a year.
632
I should not like to say that the figure is as great as that, but probably it could be £100 million a year in exports to Europe.
What disappoints me in this situation is that we have not heard many constructive suggestions. It is not easy to make them, but in a debate such as this often more damage than help is caused outside. It has been said that the miners' struggle is not just a struggle for an increase in miners' pay, but a struggle on behalf of the whole trade union movement. Can we have clarification of this statement? Surely we should be discussing the whole of industry and its workers. If this is to involve dozens of other industries which are in the queue, where will the country end? Will this not make prices go up everywhere, especially affecting old people and those living on fixed incomes?
Just before the struggle started I saw Mr. Gormley on television. He was saying that very little separated the two sides. If that was so, why should there have been the strike? They said that the issue was very narrow, yet here we are embarking on the fourth week of the strike. No one would begrudge the miners the last rise they had, but I should like to know where the money goes for the coal produced at the pit when the difference between that price and the price of delivered coal is about £15. There is no wastage of coal; it is a commodity which keeps. I should like to see a full inquiry held into all aspects of the industry and into the profits which are made, so that we may get to the bottom of this problem.
When the price of coal went up after the last pay increase it brought protests from the Electricity Generating Boards. It was said that coal was becoming uneconomic for them to use and they demanded that they should be allowed to return to the use of gas or foreign diesel oil. There is a steady process going on in industry to-day. Firms are approached by the Gas Council to switch over from coal to gas. I have experienced this with reference to a factory with which I am connected in the Manchester area. They have made a very attractive proposition. When one works out the cost of putting in new burners to convert to gas one finds that it is more than paid for in five years

633
and it is a cheaper fuel. If the industry is to survive it must be competitive. If the rundown has to take place, there must be some money to enable men to be placed in other jobs, but whenever a settlement is arrived at there will undoubtedly be many closures of mines. Fewer people will buy coal and many mines will be in such a condition that probably they will not be workable. That might have been the case anyway, but at least the process would have been orderly.
Very little has been said today about safety, but we have read about this in the Press. Reference was made to a picture which appeared in The Times last week. Someone said that it was taken last autumn. Much damage is being done and I find it disappointing that, against the advice of union leaders, the safety of the mines is not being maintained. There has been a refusal to save machinery in deep pits in South Yorkshire and the Midlands. This will mean enormous costs for the Coal Board. I agree that if one is to have a strike one should have a good strike, but surely there must be some sense in which men are advised by their leaders about how far they should go. This process will only accelerate the closure of many pits. It is not easy for a layman in this House, or outside, to give very constructive advice on a problem such as this.
Over the years there has been a very real affection in the hearts of British people for the miners. There is no question of that. It would be a crying
634
shame if this were dissipated; but if this situation continues much longer, they will lose it. And who pays in the long run? It is the aged and the sick who foot the bill. The rest of the people can go out and buy Aladdin stoves and get along somehow or other. It is the old people who really pay the price when we have these national crises.
I should like now to refer to the pickets. I think what we have seen on television has been absolutely disgraceful; it was reported that one father spat at his daughter when she was going through to do some office work. This does not help their cause one little bit. I really hope that they will resist this type of behaviour in the future. It is very bad for them, and it is bad for the industry. I say again that I believe we need a fuel policy to cover the whole national effort. I should like to see preferential treatment not only for the coal industry, but for the distant fishing industry and perhaps one or two others, where they are treated as a special category which has no bearing on other industries, with a long-term plan for the industry so that the men in the industry know where they are going.
At the end of the day, it will be difficult to get these people to talk. Why cannot they go to arbitration? They are a strong body of fair-minded men. If there is a case—and I think there is for many grades of workers—surely arbitration would put their case right. I beg the miners to see the light in this direction.
10.12 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN: My Lords, on the one hand we hear the claims of the miners for a wage related to their hazardous and capricious job; on the other hand we hear that the profit and loss account of the National Coal Board indicates that there are no profit margins which can be used to meet this wage demand. On both sides I see in this confrontation genuine and sincere attempts to resolve what seems to me to be the financial dilemma. Even though it could be conceded that this impasse is not the direct responsibility of this Government, it does give them a great opportunity, because it seems to me that only Her Majesty's Government can find the wherewithal to solve this financial problem. And they solve it, I suggest, within the spirit and context of the plea of the Prime Minister, by ceasing to look backwards, looking forward and striding ahead. Let the solution to this problem be an imaginative step forward in creating good will between Government and workers. Once it is recognised— and I mean really recognised—that the primary energy and raw materials of the country are paramount in dictating the national economy, we must see to it that the basic sources of primary energy and raw materials are guaranteed in all circumstances.
Therefore I should like to touch for a moment on the assessment of the national price that we should be paying for coal in terms of Britain's potential future. During the past decade we have heard loud voices proclaiming that the coal industry is doomed. Under this kind of threat, can we really expect miners to go on enduring the hazards of coalmining without feeling militant or despondent? We have closed pit after pit without a real protest from the miners. Let that, as many noble Lords have already said, be placed to the credit of the miners. In looking ahead, do we see any truth in this picture of a doomed industry? Despite the closure of pits and the reduction in manpower we have maintained output by increasing output per man by mechanised mining—and let that go to the credit of the National Coal Board. Let us praise their mining engineers who have created levels of safety along with mechanised mining which have—and I speak with absolute
636
certainty, my Lords—no rivals in the world. Now add to this the fact that Britain still possesses the greatest reserves of coal in the whole of Europe and, more than that, possesses a wider range of coal than practically any known part of the earth's crust.
It is against that backcloth that we have to assess the future of coal and coal miners as we enter this new phase in our history when the assessment and judgment of traditional elements of industry will be at stake. Any error of judgment of this kind would mean the disastrous continuation of unemployment. The use of magic norms and numerical calculations are academic exercises, and these will not take us along the road to abundance. Only primary energy and raw materials will pave that roadway into the future that we hope for. Coal is still our richest asset in terms of national resources and it will remain so for decades to come. We simply cannot survive without it, as the bitter weeks ahead may well prove to us more graphically than any words of mine. It is imprudent to think that foreign coal can ever compete with British coal on the home market. It would be equally short-sighted to fail to realise that if we set about it properly we can become a major source of coal for overseas markets; Japan, for example, is thirsting for coal. But we need not look as far away as Japan. The reserve figures of Europe declare quite clearly that within the next decade they are going to need more and more coal; and this is the challenge that is supposed to be associated with a doomed industry!
Measured in millions of metric tons of coal equivalent—this was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who indeed has put the picture of fuels very correctly and accurately before your Lordships, and I would thank him for it —it has been shown that the world energy consumption is round about 7,000 metric units. By 1980 it is perfectly clear that this figure will be 12,000 metric units. Therefore within the next eight years only the world has to find 5,000 metric units, and that means simply that the position of solid fuels in the energy structure of the world will never deteriorate from its present position until nuclear energy has reached fulfilment.

637
It may surprise your Lordships to learn that even after a half-century of research we still do not know the fundamental structure of coal, the way in which the atoms of carbon are linked with those of nitrogen, sulphur and oxygen. It is only within the last decade that new techniques have become available to scientists which are beginning to reveal this fundamental knowledge. Once we have this knowledge at our command we can render coal into liquids and, even more easily, render it almost effortlessly, with the use of catalysts that are now emerging, into gas. From these gases we can exploit the thermo-chemical energy, making direct current—these are not Jules Verne stories—without the use of dynamos, and we shall also obliterate that factor of coal, the curse of the burning of coal and the making of smoke.
Why not broaden the activities of the National Coal Board and involve them in the exploration of the other minerals that lie, many of them, beneath our coalfields? I suggest, with respect, that the imaginative promotion of £50 million for the exploration for minerals in this country might more profitably be used by the geologists and mining engineers of the National Coal Board in searching for these minerals than extending these grants, perhaps, to overseas investors. This has been done before in the search for oil: the British Petroleum Company combined with the National Coal Board in drilling deep bore holes. This was very successful. We can repeat this exercise by drilling through our coalmines down into the buried lead and zinc deposits, for example, in Derbyshire. Here it seems to me that we have a possibility of looking again at our fuel and energy processes; and in giving this some thought the Government might enlarge a Ministry by calling it something like "Minerals and Fuels and Power"because this is the trinity that one should be looking at.
So I appeal to the Government to solve this financial dilemma; if they can, to restructure the characteristics of this mining industry as a service to the nation and, in doing so, restore the confidence of the miners in their industry and prove to them that there will always be coal miners in Britain, and that they
638
are not only just the vital source of our primary energy, but that we respect them and protect them from the hazards they endure to make Britain become as great in the future as their coal made us supreme in the past.
10.23 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, we have had a long and not only exhausting but exhaustive debate. I will not try to follow the two noble Lords who have spoken before me and who have unparalleled experience of the coal industry. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not in his place. I should like to respond to his economic lecture. That lecture has omitted the fact that in as much as there was any success in the Government's policy, it was due solely to slackness and unemployment. If it did not mean a complete somersault of the prices policy—which it did because we have certainly had price control, and they swore to do it by monetary control alone—on the wage front, we have an unbalanced wage restraint on the public sector wages by greeting with glee the increase in profits and after-tax incomes.
I have for 25 years preached and pleaded that it will be impossible to combine full employment and economic stability—especially price stability—without a purposive contact between the Government and both sides of industry, whether public or private. I hope that I interpret correctly my noble friend's Motion, that he condemns the Government not because they have an incomes policy, but because they have the incomes policy that they have.
No Government can do without an incomes policy. When the Prime Minister went around trumpeting up and down the country that he would not have an incomes policy I predicted in this House that he would have mass unemployment. The Prime Minister has succeeded in combining mass unemployment with a rate of inflation which, despite self-congratulatory Ministerial noises which we hear now, is still above the worst we have experienced under Labour. That incomes policy is a wage restraint based on unemployment and operating in the public sector only. In the private sector the concentration of economic power has

639
undermined resistance against wage increases. Employers know that they can shift the burden of wage increases while strikes would be fatal to them. So we have the dustmen's, the electricity workers' and the postmen's strikes, and now the miners' strike. While the private sector collapsed in the face of the wage push, the taxpayer is called in to bail out the Government's miserable and immoral policy.
It is monstrous to enact tax laws which increase the top £50,000 salary by £6,803 (with two children), and then to turn round and ask for restraint by people who hazard their life and health to get the country's domestic energy and see their standards steadily eroded. Ministers have an effrontery to come here and in the other place to complain about the effects of wage demands and then go and encourage the Gas Board to pay outrageous prices and tribute to North American exploration companies. It is nauseating to see the Prime Minister and his Secretaries bleating about high wages and wage demands and then appointing special committees to fix top salaries, when they know full well from past experience and even from a priori reasoning that that arrangement is bound to lead to leapfrogging of incomes. Sectional boards inevitably have to take into account comparability, and comparability leads to leapfrogging. So we see that my friend the noble Viscount, Lord Boyle, who in sincerity and uprightness is not surpassed by anybody and paralleled by very few, is constrained to grant salaries which must necessarily be provocative.
The Prime Minister's increase of some £150 per week is paralleled only by the Lord Chancellor's £100 per week, of which £50 per week is for acting as Speaker of this House. I always understood from the Front Benches, and more especially from the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that this House prided itself on not having a Speaker. Some £50 a week for a non-job! Not bad! All this shows a peculiar and a louche priority of values, a perverted sense that cries out for a thorough analysis by an eminent connoisseur of the obscene, as is my noble friend Lord Longford. And then we have the Government "yammering"about the miners' excessive wage demands. The
640
Coal Board sends round, at the taxpayers' cost, a sheet saying that the minimum for a miner with two children is as high as £16.42 per week. For shame! It is outrageous to ask the miners to submit their case to a tribunal consisting of an ex-civil servant who worked for a large-scale industry, an employee of the trade association and a so-called academic who is notorious for his anti-union views. How could the miners expect justice at their hands? What an outrageous suggestion it is! The Government pride themselves on the success they had in reducing the rate of inflation. When one reads the Macmillan memoirs one sees that he too had visions of an ultimate solution—like Hitler—of the problem of inflation. But he, too, had an Election timetable, and once expansion started the ultimate solution dissolved. We had another and worse bout, despite the fact that unemployment remained higher at each successive peak than it was before. If it was Miss Christine Keeler who last time interfered with the planning of the election boom, it will be French Marianne and Germania now. The price increases attendant upon our entry will make a safe choice for an election boom impossible.
In my opinion the miners' or any profession's income problem can be solved only in a national context on the basis of an overall consensus; a national consensus, not purely on incomes but on social ambience in general. This can be achieved only if the trade unions are conscious of steadily advancing social justice and public accountability. Such consensus is especially necessary in conditions such as we have now, which have been created by the foolish policies of the Government. Incomes have been deliberately made more unequal by cutting direct and increasing indirect taxation. The provision of social services will be limited by means tests and financed by regressive social service contributions. What do the Government want? A discriminatory policy has been pursued against the public sector industries but not against the civil servants. A public Budget surplus has been converted into private gain, and that has produced, of course, a boom in assets like houses and shares, which are at the moment touching as high a record as is unemployment.

641
Only a broadly balanced programme can have a chance of success, and the elements of such a programme cannot be explored too soon. We shall need a tax reform; we shall need a very definite extension of public ownership. This might embrace building societies and various other things. It should definitely include experimentation. Without such new beginnings I do not believe we shall get the sort of harmony which we need if England is to survive. in fact we could say to the Government, "Undo all that you have done in your folly and do all that you have not done before".
10.33 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I must confess that as the hours of debate have ticked by my enthusiasm for rising to speak has become an ever-cooling element, so I start by using that hackney phrase, which I know will please the House, "At this later hour I will not detain your Lordships long". Neither do I feel qualified to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken in his exposition of gas (as regards the problems of North Sea) prices in relation to other fuels.
My Lords, we debate under the shadow of a strike which involves economic suicide for the livelihood of those who depend upon the coal industry for their sustenance, and a strike which I believe can deal a grievous blow to our promising and improving economic prospects. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury; I believe that the miners have a fund of good will and sympathy throughout the country, but I fear they are in danger of losing it because of the action of a few militants; and they would be in danger of losing if their leaders refused to compromise except on the terms they laid down. This strike will have to end by a compromise settlement. There can be no victory for anyone in it: there cannot be victory for the Government, there cannot be victory for the public, there cannot be victory for the miners. In his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that the Government do not seek to force a surrender. As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said, in what I thought was a very powerful speech, the sooner the parties get round the table and get down to a solution, the better for all concerned.
642
As I see it, the position now is that the National Coal Board made an offer, since withdrawn, and the National Union of Mineworkers refused that offer. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, called, as did other speakers, for a fair settlement for all parties—the State, the miners, the National Coal Board. The noble Earl said that this settlement must not put at risk our improving position by renewal of cost/wage inflation. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was like someone who rides a horse, brings it up to the jump, has a look at the jump and then turns away. Because how can a non-money Coal Board, meeting a National Union of Mineworkers who say "No settlement without cash offer", come to any fair settlement without some element of public funds being brought into the compromise in some form or other?
In analysis of the situation and possible ways of working towards a settlement, I confess some puzzlement in two directions, on which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to put me right. My first puzzlement is this: when is a wage claim one that must be resisted as being outside the Government norm and a menace to the Government's defence against cost/wage inflation, and when is a wage claim labelled as special and therefore carries with it an acceptable review of the rate for the job? In one case you have a massive number of men seeking a moderate—in terms of income —individual increase; in the other special category a very limited number with a claim for review of salaries and pension levels. The miners' claims are for £5, £8 or £9, according to their particular work, and, of course, these claims will have to be scaled down, and scaled down very severely, in any final compromise settlement. Members of Parliament, the Judiciary, Ministers and civil servants get thoroughly well deserved and well-earned rises—I make no criticism of it—far beyond the norm, under the label of special case.
I guess that the Minister's reply to me will be that a little to several hundred thousand men can endanger our improving economic position, but a lot to quite a few does not. But the individual miner thinks in terms of individuals, and that feeling, I believe, must be realised when we come to evaluate this dispute. So I

643
ask, could the miners be considered in the category of special, with the Trades Union Congress agreeing to that and, as such, agreeing in relation to other wage claims in other grades?
My second puzzlement is this, and again I am sure the Minister will he able to put me right. When is Government support money for an industry a subsidy, and when is it not? The suggestion for direct subsidy for the coal industry is rejected, and rightly, by the Government, and there has been no support for it, I think, from anyone on this side of the House. But, turning to another nationalised body, British Rail are to receive £60 million to cover losses from running uneconomic social service railway services. British Rail are to receive some £27 million to cover restraint on price increases to the travelling public in accord with the C.B.I. example. Are those sums subsidies or are they not? On this basis, could not the National Coal Board receive subvention to enable price increases to consumers to be kept down in relation to a higher wage level to be bargained with the National Coal Board, and, I repeat again, endorsed by the Trades Union Congress as a special case and not one to create a whole further number of claims?
In the final event, public money will have to be injected as part of the settlement, when it comes. So could not the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers, the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the Government sit down and work out a deal based on a reasonable plus on the Coal Board's last offer, and the plus to be linked to two things: the trade unions' endorsement of it as a special case and a productivity agreement which would yield enough revenue to repay, over an agreed period of years, an interest-free loan of public money. It is with great diffidence to all the experts we have heard, and no doubt shall be hearing shortly, in your Lordships' House, that I fly this little kite of mine. At once and gladly will I pull it down, but the Minister must be willing to fly a better one than I have, and fly it higher and make it a bigger and a sounder one. My Lords, I finish as I started: in the final event there will have to be a compromise, and public funds in some form or other will have to play a part in the settlement.
10.43 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down may feel very satisfied that he has both spoken shortly and given a great deal of information which noble Lords in all parts of the House—and I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying on this side of the House—found very well worth listening to. It is a pleasure for me to be able to follow him on yet a further occasion.
My first duty is to thank my noble friend Lord Blyton not only for giving us the opportunity of this debate, which has been extremely well attended, and has shown how necessary it was by the number of speakers, but for the very moving and well-informed speech with which he opened the debate. I hope that I am not out of order, but I should like also to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for making it possible to have this debate at fairly short notice. I thank him, too, for his speech. I understood his point very well when he said he would endeavour to see that nothing he said was going to make it more difficult for this strike to be settled. If he were here now, I should be only too happy to tell him that he entirely succeeded in that endeavour. I am bound to add, however, that he did nothing, either, which made the settlement of this strike any easier. He said nothing about that, and I say to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate that what this House wants to know is what the Government propose to do to end this deadlock. It is no use hiding behind phrases about difficulties and problems and sensitivities, and about other right honourable colleagues' responsibilities and duties.
We have had a long debate; a number of your Lordships from all parts of the House have contributed, and the one theme has been that there must be some compromise from all sides. Compromise means movement from both sides if there are two sides, or from all three sides if there are three. All that the noble Earl the Leader of the House really said in his opening speech was that the Government regard wage increases of between 7 and 8 per cent. as appropriate, and that that figure would help them to carry on with their successful progress in limiting inflation. Curiously enough, by the most amazing

645
coincidence—and it is nothing but coincidence—the wage that is being proposed by the National Coal Board is between 7 and 8 per cent. more than was paid last year. There is nobody on this side of the House who believes for one moment that the influence of the Government on the present wage settlements is not important, and there is no ex-Minister who would not say that the Government are rising to their responsibility for seeing that their influence is important, because that is what Government are there for. In this very difficult area, every Government have to exercise their influence in some way or other as they see best. What the present Government are doing and have made perfectly clear, as has been stated by the Chairman of the Coal Board in his own words, and as was in effect repeated by the noble Earl the Leader of the House in his opening words this afternoon, is to indicate very firmly indeed to the National Coal Board that their limit is between 7 and 8 per cent.
My Lords, the strike cannot be settled within that limit, and speaker after speaker in your Lordships' House has made it clear that there should be a movement. That means a movement downwards by the miners' representatives —and that is not impossible in a wage negotiation, although I have no authority of any kind to indicate what might be acceptable. I have no knowledge at all, but it would not be surprising, in a wage negotiation, if the first figure represented something which would be satisfactory but perhaps not something to be relied on. It means also a movement upwards by the National Coal Board, who have said that they cannot offer any more because they cannot possibly afford another penny. Every businessman here —and there are many—and every accountant will know that that is a statement which cannot be sustained. In an industry of this kind, with so many unknowns, that cannot be sustained. You do not know what labour difficulties you are going to have during the year. You do not know what productivity increase you are going to have during the year. You do not know what domestic coal demand is going to be during the year, as a result of the economic development of the country. You certainly cannot control what world
646
demand and world prices are going to be during the year.
All you know—and many noble Lords seem not to have read the first sentence of the Coal Board s Report, which perhaps I may be forgiven for reading—is that,
"The strong demand for coal continued in 1970–71 and again exceeded production."
What we know is that we need more coal than we are producing; and we shall do so next year. But I repeat, no chairman or managing director of any business of that size can possibly say as a fact, and expect to be believed, "I cannot afford one more penny, not I cent." There are too many variables and too many unknowns for a responsible person to make that statement. What he can say is, "I am not allowed by the Government to go above 8 per cent." That we can understand. But he cannot rest on the other statement.
I have to be practical and as speedy as the hour necessitates, and there is no need for me to reiterate again our admiration of the miners, their responsibility over the years, the moderation of their leaders and their courage. That has been made clear by so many of my noble friends, many of whom have the right to say it, being miners, descendants of miners or living among miners. I can claim only to have been down a pit or two and never to have hewn coal, so that those tributes come properly from them and I need not repeat it. I want to get straight on to one or two suggestions for breaking this deadlock.
The first point I made I repeat very shortly. It cannot be right that the Chairman of the Coal Board can say, "This enormous industry, the biggest in the country, is so much in the hollow of my hand that I can tell you precisely, within one penny in the pound, how much I can afford for wages." That is the first point. The second point—and this was referred to by several noble Lords—is this. The calculation is not entirely straightforward. With respect, I did not agree with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said, although I thought he made a very constructive speech and a very good speech indeed. He drew attention to the number of issues where the costing had been done

647
in a particular way—for example, the tax on competing fuel. That has its effect. He introduced a number of other examples—the way that the capital had been partly written down in 1965, and a number of other matters. All I am saying, therefore, is this: "Let nobody say that you can put a particular figure on your profit and loss and say, 'That is it'." Of course you do your best, and of course every auditor does his best in signing the certificate; but nobody can say, "This is the truth and the whole truth, and there is no other aspect of the truth." What I am saying is that it is possible to look at these figures and ask a number of questions.
One question has occurred to many of my noble friends, and I will repeat it. I, as an accountant, have not had enough information in the report to give a firm answer, but it would not surprise me at all if this business had not been treated as any other business in the private sector would have been treated; namely, that if you are closing down business after business, pit after pit, department after department or factory after factory, as the case may be, you adjust your capital accordingly. If capital is lost, it is lost; and it is merely lacking objectivity to say, "I refuse to recognise this." I am saying that I do not know enough of the facts, but I should not be at all surprised if it could be demonstrated that an appropriate write-down of capital was overdue.
Now let me help a little further with the figures, because the most relevant thing which has been pointed out is that today the interest on every ton of coal produced is greater than it was before the capital write-down, and only to a small extent is that due to the higher rate of interest on the money recently borrowed. It is mainly due to the fact that it has got out of gear, and there is no businessman or stockbroker here who knows of any private firm which can run on a gearing like this of 100 per cent. borrowing and nought per cent. capital; so that before it makes a penny profit it must pay its standard dividend on what, in other circumstances, would be the whole of its capital. So one must look at the facts a little more objectively than has been done so far; and I am saying that the position revealed is interesting be-
648
cause the amount of that interest is exactly £31 million—the amount of the Board's offer, which is something less than an 8 per cent. increase on last year's wages.
Supposing that these figures were looked at, and that it was found as a fact that the assets lost and the businesses lost through the pit closures would have meant in a normal business the necessity to write down the capital by (what shall we say?) a quarter, that would mean that one-quarter would be available for increasing the Coal Board's offer without one farthing (if "one farthing" is an expression one can use) being put on the cost of coal. There would be no additional cost at all. One-quarter would mean that the figure of something less than 8 per cent, would be raised to about 10 per cent. I am not saying that that would settle the matter. I am only saving that we should then move to a situation in which the miners were being asked to accept a continuation in their standard of living and not a fall in it. What they are being asked to accept at the moment is a 2 per cent, reduction in their standard of living—ignoring their productivity, ignoring the benefit the Board have had out of their work. Let me remind the House of what that benefit is.
During the course of the last four years the cash value of the proceeds per man-shift have gone up by 60 per cent. —not in real terms, but in cash. The cash value of the wages has gone up by 25 per cent. The boss, the Board, has had an improvement of 60 per cent.; the men, the miners, have had an improvement of 25 per cent. It is odd that, against those figures, the Board say that they cannot possibly afford any more. I am saying that, notwithstanding the cash improvement in what the man-shift produces, notwithstanding the fact that productivity over the last decade has been higher than in manufacturing industry generally (and this is what happens when you nationalise an industry); notwithstanding both those facts, the miners are being asked to accept a drop in their living standards. Without doing other than taking an objective view of the capital structure of the Board, I believe it may be possible to say that there is available a further sum of money which, without putting one farthing on the price

649
of coal, would enable the offer to be increased by 25 per cent. And that would result in the miners' living standards being continued instead of dropping.
Let me go on to a further point—and here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He said, in short, "Where is the sinfulness in subsidy?"He was talking about subsidies in transport. We do not have to look a long way ahead; we have only to think, as my noble friend Lord Energlyn, reminded us, that associated with coal are minerals; and associated with energy are minerals. We have to think of our business in this House on Thursday next, in three days' time. What are we proposing to do on Thursday? We are proposing a subsidy of £25 million. And for what? For minerals. For the men who are going to win the minerals? Oh, no! We are to propose a £25 million subsidy for exploration; for the firms which are to explore for minerals. Here we are dealing with the later stage. The mining happens after the exploration has taken place. There are men who will be winning the minerals. All I am saying is, if it is right to claim subsidies from the Exchequer on trust, if it is right to provide £25 million on trust for a number of firms to explore for minerals, can it be very wrong to provide, say, half that sum—to divide it between the mineral explorers and the winners of the minerals? The miners produce the coal. Can it be wrong to provide £12½ million for them?
This is where I answer the question put to the noble Earl the leader of the House. He had not his figures handy at the time when he was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, what would be the precise figure that would produce an 11 per cent. increase. This subsidy would produce an 11 per cent. increase in the miners' wages as compared with last year—going up from somewhere between 7 and 8 per cent. and 10 per cent.—without any cost at all. This excludes that other alternative, by itself, merely sharing the subsidy between two recipients instead of giving it all to one small group. Sharing the subsidy between two recipients would result in ability to break the deadlock by enabling the Coal Board to offer a sum equivalent to an 11 per cent. increase. It would enable miners to have the magnificent
650
sum of a penny in the pound increase on their living standards, which would help greatly in places like Chesterfield and Pontefract where miners live and where, in two or three months' time, they will have to pay an additional £1 a week rent.
I am saying that there are various methods by which this deadlock could be broken. I regret to have to say that one can conclude, from everything done by the Minister and from the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at the beginning of the debate, that the Government have continued in their attitude of lofty disinterest in this matter superficially while behind the scenes seeing to it that nothing more than 8 per cent. so far has been offered. The way to break this deadlock is to make it possible to arrive at a compromise by one of the various methods which I have suggested, and which would be done as soon as the Government removed the shackles preventing it. We are saying to the Government that it is precisely at their door that this first official strike in the mining industry for the last half century rests. The miners, quite properly are unable to contemplate a situation in which they see their living standards literally falling; where they see their co-operation in securing something like a two-thirds reduction in their manpower turned against them and where they see their standards and comparative position falling the whole time.
My Lords, there is a lot more that I could say, were time available. I have suggested sufficient to show that this is what we demand of the Government; and unless they come forward with concrete proposals and undertakings of action to break this deadlock, we shall be bound to show our disapproval and condemnation in the Division Lobbies.
11.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate and one in which many excellent suggestions have been made. I should like to say at the outset that we will have all those suggestions most carefully examined. It would be folly for me to attempt to respond to them tonight. Indeed, I cannot, obviously, commit my right honourable friend to suggestions

651
that he has not yet even considered. So, if I may, I will undertake to consider the suggestions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by many other speakers, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn. I was particularly interested in the emphasis on a fuel policy laid by a number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury and the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, himself.
As the Motion before the House "calls attention to the … coal mining industry" I should like to start by saying a word about that. The Government keep the balance between the different fuels under close review, but they do not wish to predict the future demand for any particular fuel. The relative advantages of nuclear power and of oil from the OPEC countries and gas from the North Sea, as compared with coal, can vary, and can vary at very short intervals. Predictions in this field are very fallible. The present strike will of course certainly cause them to vary. Basically the Government consider that consumers should be free to choose their own fuels. Future coal demand must then depend primarily on its competitiveness. But the Government recognise the need to take into account wider considerations such as security of supply and other social and regional factors. As my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, coal receives protection through the fuel oil tax and through restrictions on conversions of power stations. A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Arwyn and Lord Harvey of Prestbury, have urged that a full inquiry should be held; and it seems to me that they have slightly different ideas about what the inquiry should be. The noble Lord, Lord Harvey, also urged a long-term plan for the industry. But I think one must say that we have to get the strike settled, at any rate before we can consider such rather long-term matters.
My Lords, I should like to say right away—and I agree here with my noble friend Lord Thomas, who made an excellent speech—that one has to analyse this Motion. As I see it, it does three things. It calls attention to the situation
652
in the coal-mining industry; it states that the Government's policy towards incomes makes industrial action by the miners inevitable, and thirdly it invites the House to express its disapproval of that policy. What matters so far as this debate is concerned is that nothing should be said that could make things worse or make it more difficult for the strike to be settled. First the Motion calls attention to the situation in the coal-mining industry, and noble Lords will expect me to say something about that and to put the record straight where it seems to me that it needs to be put straight.
It is very important that the traditional impartiality of the Secretary of State should be maintained, since he may see an opportunity to intervene with an attempt to get a settlement, and he will do that when the time seems appropriate to him to do so. At the present the dispute is one between the National Coal Board and National Union of Mineworkers even if the effects of the dispute are felt much more widely. What matters now is not whether the policy of the Government made the strike inevitable, as the Motion alleges—at this time what is important is not so much what caused the strike as finding a basis for a settlement. However, as this Motion challenges the Government's policy as it affects incomes, I shall also deal with that. But first may I say something about the situation in the coal industry and the background of the strike? This has been gone over many times in the debate and I do not think I need say very much more than this on that particular aspect.
We have had in the past few years, in the past twenty years if you like, an immense industrial transformation carried out with extremely little trouble, and that is a standing and durable tribute to the good sense and realism of both the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. It resulted in a technically advanced industry far better equipped to compete with other fuels and to play its proper part in the wellbeing of the nation. All this earned, and received, the gratitude of everyone. The miners themselves were better off, better housed, better paid. One compares it with the war time and the immediate post-war time. They are better housed, better paid with better welfare services,

653
and they have a job to do which is much more interesting because it is more highly skilled. It remains, however, one of the most arduous and dangerous occupations. I do not dissent from Lord Harvey of Prestbury in joining the deep-sea fishermen with those in this industry. It is one of the most dangerous of occupations, although I am bound to say that the incidence of fatal accidents has fallen considerably. A good deal has been said about this aspect, but I would just add this comment. The fact that it is between one-half and one-fifth in its incidence in other comparable countries is a great credit to all concerned in this country.
As to productivity, in the last ten years output per man-shift has increased on average by 4¾ per cent. a year. The rate of increase reached a peak of 9 per cent. in 1968–69, but fell to about 2 per cent. in the succeeding two years. It was still falling in the present year, 1971–72, even before the overtime ban started on November 1; and in the first nine months productivity was about 0·5 per cent. less than last year. As to costs, they were fairly stable between 1960 and 1968–69, when they rose by only 2 per cent. a year. But in 1969–70 they rose sharply, and again in 1970–71, so that a 20 per cent. increase was recorded over those two years. Whereas coal supplied nearly 90 per cent. of our energy consumption in 1950, the proportion had fallen to 47·1 per cent. in 1970. Consumption by gasworks and the railways had practically ceased, and domestic and industrial consumption had more than halved.
Despite modernisation and increased productivity, the position of the industry cannot be said to be entirely healthy. Prices have risen since October, 1969, by about 40 per cent., on average, though within this average there are wide variations. Productivity is falling. Since the writing-off of £415 million of the National Coal Board's capital in 1965 the N.C.B. have accumulated losses of nearly £34 million. And, speaking of that capital reconstruction, I should remind noble Lords that the Board were then relieved of the entire burden of compensation to former coal owners. A small profit of £½ million was made last year, but this year the losses of £20 million through overtime bans, and of £10 million a week so long as the strike lasts, are bound to result in a deficit on
654
the year's out-turn. All this means that there would have been serious problems ahead for the Board and the Government, quite apart from the strike.
Until the strike, coal had been fighting hard, and not without success, to retain markets against heavy pressure from other fuels, and the industry had slimmed down and increased its efficiency. The prospects for coal, here and abroad, depend on the choice of coal-users, and that in turn depends on price and reliability of supplies. The prospects were looking brighter, especially as there was a good chance of increasing sales within the E.E.C. The strike has put them at risk. That, my Lords, is a summary of the situation in the industry to which the Motion refers.
It has been suggested that if the National Coal Board were relieved of more of their capital obligations they would be able to pay higher wages. But the offer which the National Coal Board have made is in line with the bulk of recent settlements of wage claims. Is it seriously suggested that it would be right to transfer to the taxpayer the cost of settling at rates which in the Board's judgment are against their interest and the wider public interest? Is it right to finance inflation in that way? Can one ignore the economic situation of an industry and what the consumer is prepared to pay? Fuel is a field in which competition is keen. Prices of coal have increased by 40 per cent., on average, within the past two and a half years. Since the National Coal Board are barely breaking even, any wage increase is bound to mean higher prices, unless coal is subsidised. The N.C.B. had hoped under each of their offers to be able to contain price increases within the 5 per cent. C.B.I. formula, which has been generally accepted by industry as a whole.
Everyone in this debate has said that there is great public sympathy for the miners. But, as I think my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said, how long would that public sympathy survive once the daily lives of the community begin to be seriously disrupted and real hardship becomes widespread for families, and for the old and sick. As I have said, the National Coal Board have certainly shown no obstinacy. They have raised

655
their initial offer three times at least: there have been four separate offers. Their last offer, which the National Union of Mineworkers did not put to their constituent members, would have given £2 a week more to 121,000 adult day-wage men paid under the 1959 day-wage structure, thus raising the minimum wage to £20 a week—a target of the T.U.C.—and would have taken the miners from 16th to 6th place in the league table of minimum rates. To the other 160,000 adults it would have given an extra £1·90 a week. In addition, there would have been an extra five individual holidays a year.
The effect of these increases, taken together with the increases of up to £.2·77½ per week to bring all workers under the National Power Loading Agreement up to the same level as that of the Nottingham and Kent workers, would have raised the average earnings of men on faces covered by that agreement up to £34·67 and those of craftsmen on N.P.L.A. faces up to £42 a week. Last October, average earnings overall, including average allowances in kind (concessionary coal, housing) of £2·13, were £30·14, compared with £28·80 for all industries. I think my noble friend, Lord Bessborough asked me for that figure. The increases offered would have taken the average over £32 and they would have cost the N.C.B. over £31 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith asked: did the Government allow the National Coal Board to negotiate freely? The answer, my Lords, is that they did. The Board freely negotiated without Government constraints—and if I may say so, I think that where this debate has gone wrong throughout is that this fact was not appreciated, or, if it was appreciated, it was not believed. But this was so. Of course the Board, like all other employers, are aware of the Government's view of the need to reduce the level of wage settlements as part of their general policy against inflation, and likewise the Board kept the Government informed of developments. But your Lordships will, I believe, accept that this was both proper and customary, given the duty of the National Coal Board to have regard to the public interest.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord is as fully aware as I am of the minutes of the meeting between the N.U.M. and the Coal Board on December 21, the last paragraph of which reads:
"The Board said that they had very carefully considered the N.U.M. claim on the basis of the Board's operations and had looked at every possible means of improving the situation. It was for this reason that they had devised their latest package offer. In doing so they had, of course, to take account of what was happening externally."
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course they had, my Lords. That did not mean that the Government were giving them instructions what to do. I am sure that in all fairness noble Lords will appreciate that that is so.
One answer to the charge of unfair treatment in the public sector—and this has been a recurrent theme, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—lies in the statistics covering wage rates and earnings published recently by the Department of Employment, to which my noble friend the Leader of the House referred. The indices dominated by the private sector and the reduction in 1971, compared with 1970, just could not have occurred had de-escalation been limited to the public sector. It follows that attention was paid, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, by the private sector, as well as by the public sector, to the Government's policy.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would clarify that point a little further. Are we to understand from what he said that if the National Coal Board decided in all the circumstances that it would be appropriate to make a further and improved offer in order to contribute to a settlement, the Government would raise no objection to their doing so?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this has not been put to the Government; I cannot possibly answer that question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have been asked, "Could not something have been done?"
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Will the noble Lord give way? The National Coal Board may not have put the question but, with respect, I have put the

657
question. This is to clarify the point that the noble Lord has made. If the National Coal Board decided, in the light of circumstances, that they should come forward with an improved offer to contribute to a settlement, are we to understand that the Government would make no objection to their putting that improved offer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question, and it would be quite improper to attempt to answer it. It is a different question. Noble Lords on the other side laugh; they know that they put me in a certain difficulty. They know that if they were standing where I am they would be in the same difficulty and would give the same answer.
I have been asked, "Could not something have been done to avoid this strike? Could not the Government, even now, do something to end it?" The Board alone are fully responsible for the management of the industry. They have made four separate offers; they have repeatedly met the miners' leaders. They have expressed willingness to have the dispute resolved by the National Reference Tribunal, a standing body of three independent members provided for under the Coal Mining Industry Conciliation Scheme, and respected by everyone (except apparently the noble Lord, Lord Balogh), but the National Union of Mineworkers refused. It is difficult to see what more the National Coal Board could have done. They offered the most they considered they could afford in keeping with the prospects of the industry and with their statutory duties. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the Minister says that there was no pressure or influence on the Coal Board, and that the private sector is treated like the public sector. Will he tell me which company could have withstood these losses that are now incurred by the Coal Board, unless the Government would guarantee it? Does he not realise that what we are now seeing is a public subsidy to withstand the strike? That is what we are witnessing now, because it was only because—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD BALOGH: The Government subsidised the Coal Board—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD BALOGH: We are not in Question Time. The Minister has yielded; I am not going to be intimidated; I am not that sort of a man. Will the Minister answer how a private company could stand these losses, and how a private company would weigh up the costs and advantages of striking or not striking'?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that seems to be a totally different proposition. Obviously the private—
LORD BALOGH: The Minister does not understand.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I understand the point very well. But private enterprise is in a totally different position from the nationalised industry which is entirely dependent for its funds on the Government. That is so. I do not see that the noble Lord is advancing any kind of argument in that whatsoever.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State considered the situation on the eve of the strike and was forced to conclude, both then and subsequently, that no practical step that would help towards a settlement was yet possible. His judgment was confirmed by the meeting arranged by Mr. Victor Feather and the meetings which my right honourable friend had with both parties. Both sides were offered the opportunity to explain the position to the Department of Employment, but the Union, I am sorry to say, did not accept the invitation.
Reference has been made in the debate to the damage that may be done to equipment in the pits and to the pits themselves if the proper safety measures are not carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, with his long experience, dwelt on the dangers involved, and others have mentioned the cost of neglect. The National Coal Board expected the cooperation of the National Union of Mineworkers in the necessary work of safeguarding underground machinery and equipment. In the event, the National Union of Mineworkers' instructions to members to undertake this work have unfortunately been largely disregarded, so that the Coal Board have had to rely solely on officials and managers. I should like to thank these men who have put in long hours of work on an

659
arduous and difficult task, and in some cases in the face of picketing. The effect is that the National Coal Board anticipate great practical difficulties in restoring conditions in many mines to former standards, and clearly the longer the strike continues the greater the problem for the Board and the higher the cost. The Board are of course more concerned about the prospects of future employment for the miners rather than the cost and difficulty of replacing damaged machinery. It is very much to be hoped that heed will be paid to the Union by its members in this respect.
Reference to picketing methods has been made during the debate by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury, my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, and others. I think I should mention that after the end of February under the Industrial Relations Act it will be illegal to picket private houses. But, apart from this, the law can act only if there is violence, threats, intimidation, trespass on private property or obstruction on the highway. My noble friend the Leader of the House has explained the Government's policy towards incomes. What nobody has explained is how that policy makes industrial action by the miners, or anyone else, inevitable. Plainly it is in the interest of everyone—or nearly everyone; certainly of all honest citizens—that the rate of inflation should be curbed. And that is precisely what the Government have been trying to do, and trying to do in a way that is fair for all.
My Lords, as the hour is late I would end simply on this note. What this Motion is calculated to do—and let us be quite clear about this—is to lay the blame in advance for the widespread hardships which would be likely to arise if this strike at this particular time of the year were to continue. Paradoxically, it seems to lay it on one of the most widely accepted and increasingly successful policies of the Government: their policy.
to combat inflation and provide a basis for faster growth. It is, of course, no novelty in politics for one Party to seek to lay the blame for any adversity that befalls the nation on its political opponents. But what we all want is an end to this strike—the first national strike of the miners, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, for half a century. What I would invite noble Lords to consider is whether voting for this Motion will contribute to the ending of this strike. I, for one, find it impossible to believe that curbing inflation by reducing the rate of wage settlements made the strike inevitable, and I suspect that many noble Lords on both sides of the House share that view. But, even if it did, it serves no good purpose to divide the House on the causes of the strike. My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, whom I congratulate not only on giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter today but for the very moderate and sympathetic way in which he introduced this Motion, will not press his Motion to a Division. It is at best irrelevant. But, if he does, I hope that your Lordships will register your strong disagreement with it.
11.30 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, there is no doubt that on the opposite Benches there is strong disagreement with this side of the House on this issue. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, what he said was reminiscent of Stanley Baldwin's attitude as the Leader of the Government in 1926. All I can say is that this will be a long and bitter struggle with the miners. As each side has put its case I shall end it with that comment, and I hope that we shall record our votes in the Division Lobby.
11.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
The Lordships divided: Contents 44; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Chalfont, L.

Gardiner, L.

Arwyn, L.

Champion, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Henderson, L.

Balogh, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Henley, L.

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Janner, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Blyton, L. [Teller.]

Energlyn, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Longford, E.

Serota, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Maelor, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Mais, L.

Shinwell, L.

White, Bs.

Milford, L.

Snow, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Summerskiil, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gainford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Aldenham, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailes, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Orr-Ewing, L.

Bessborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bethell, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Reading, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hood, V.

St. Helens, L.

Burnham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Just, L.

Caldeco e, V.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sandford, L.

Chesham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L,

Lansdowne, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Courtown, E.

Latymer, L.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lothian, M.

Thomas, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Digby, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Drogheda, E.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dudley, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wise, L.

Essex, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  POLLUTION: SEWAGE DISPOSAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  POLLUTION: SEWAGE DISPOSAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES