House of Commons
Tuesday, January 29, 1946
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
Fuel and Power
Gasworks, London (Manpower)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider augmenting the depleted labour force in the London gasworks with service personnel.
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Capt. Crowder) on 22nd January.
Paraffin (Orkney and Shetland)
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will increase the ration of paraffin for householders in Orkney and Shetland.
I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 13th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Mr. J. J. Robertson).
Is not the Minister aware that there are complaints about the very short supply of paraffin in these islands? We have been kept exceedingly short during the war, and can he not see his way to have a little more provided, taking into account the very much longer hours of darkness experienced in the islands?
I am well aware there is a shortage of kerosene but it is a world shortage not applicable to this country alone—[ Interruption ]. I am giving the facts. As regards the Orkneys I understand the present allocations are regarded as reasonable. I should be glad to provide more if I had the wherewithal.
There is a shortage in Cumberland and many homes are in darkness there.
If my hon. and gallant Friend will give some specific details, I shall be very anxious to assist.
Coal Dump, Hope Station
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how long the dump of coal has been lying at Hope station, near Sheffield; and for what purpose the coal is intended to be used.
The house coal dump at Hope station was created in the winter of 1940–41 as a strategic emergency reserve and is available as an insurance against any acute shortage of fuel in the Peak district. There are at present about two weeks' supplies in merchants' depots in this district, but arrangements have been made to release coal from the dump should the necessity arise.
Is not the Minister aware that there is at the present time a shortage of coal in the Hope Valley, and it is for that reason that the parish council have passed a resolution asking that some of this emergency coal should be released?
If we are satisfied there is an emergency, we shall release coal from the dump, but I am not satisfied that there is the shortage referred to by my hon. Friend.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week I received two or three letters from residents in Sheffield complaining that they have no coal at all and their homes are like "starvation"?
That is not unlikely.
It is time it was attended to.
We do the best that we can with available supplies. The organisation for distribution is efficient, much more so than it has been for a long time, but, in spite of that, if there is a cold snap and there are difficulties about transport, some people may go short. If they are short they ought to appeal to the Local Fuel Overseer who will attend to a case of that kind with his local emergency machinery.
Petrol
Lighting and Pumping Plants
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make arrangements for the issue of petrol for country houses' lighting and pumping plants without requiring bi-monthly applications for supplies to meet a requirement which by its nature is constant and essential.
Petrol allowances for plants used for lighting and pumping are assessed in relation to the time of year, the number of persons in residence, the use of electric equipment such as refrigerators and vacuum cleaners, and the number of hours for which pumping is necessary. These factors vary considerably from time to time but I will consider extending the period covered by permits.
Rationing
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the total petrol at present in this country; the average weekly import; and the quantity required to double the present basic ration for all private motorcars and motor-cars for hire.
As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
What figures can there possibly be in those three simple questions?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman would be surprised.
Following is the information :
As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the last paragraph of the answer I gave on the 18th December to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers).
Imports of motor spirit, which include military requirements, during the four months ended December, 1945, as published in the Trade and Navigation Accounts, were:—
Tons September … … 220,000 October … … 375,000 November … … 345,000 December … … 268,000
The present basic ration issued for all private cars and motor cycles represents an annual requirement of 530,000 tons, on the basis of cars now registered. If the basic ration were doubled it is probable that more cars would be registered and adjustments would also have to be made in the allowances granted for hire cars and taxis, allocations for which are on a different basis than for private cars. The additional requirement would therefore be considerably in excess of 530,000 tons per annum.
Commercial Travellers
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the hardship caused to commercial travellers by reason of the meagre supplementary petrol allowance granted to them, and will he take steps to increase the allowance to bona fide travellers.
I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave on 18th December to a similar Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague).
Is the Minister aware that the maximum allocation in these cases is 10 gallons per month, which is totally inadequate for a commercial traveller? Will the Minister look at this matter again, particularly as many of the applicants are ex-Servicemen who are anxious to make a living?
I cannot extend the ration to commercial travellers in general, but where there are particular cases of a commercial traveller, or someone engaged in business, requiring additional petrol, let him put in his application and we will consider it.
Could not the maximum be increased to 10 gallons?
If I increased the maximum as regards commercial travellers, I should have to increase it elsewhere, and we simply have not the supplies.
In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman always refers hon. Members to previous replies, does that mean that no progress has been made?
Not at all. All it means is that we expect hon. Members, like the Noble Lord, to read HANSARD.
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that commercial travellers are not entitled to E coupons and cannot therefore obtain a certificate for new tyres; and, in view of the fact that many commercial travellers depend for their livelihood on getting about by road, if he will give instructions to remedy this hardship.
I regret that I cannot alter a person's petrol rationing category in order to render him eligible for the supply of new car tyres. To do so would defeat the object of the Tyre Rationing Scheme for which the Board of Trade is responsible. New car tyres are still in short supply, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10th December by my right hon. and learned Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare). There is no restriction on the acquisition and disposal of retreaded or part-worn car tyres, nor on the retreading of the motorist's own tyres.
Is the Minister aware that, as he is not giving them the extra petrol, they will not now need the tyres?
My hon. Friend has a remarkable grasp of the obvious.
Electricity Supplies
Stafford
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed schemes of electricity supply of Stafford Corporation and the North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority to the Silkmore housing estate, Stafford; whether he is aware that these schemes involve the duplication of high-tension cables and the unnecessary use of expensive equipment owing to the arbitrary boundaries of the supplying authorities; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part of the Question, the observations of the North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority are being awaited and a decision cannot be given until they are received.
In view of the importance of these schemes with reference to the housing programme, is the Minister prepared to receive representations from the housing authorities?
I will look at that.
North Wales
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the prospects of the electrification of the rural area in North Wales; and whether the scheme of development by the North Wales Power Company is being held back at his request, pending nationalisation.
In reply to the first part of the Question, I am informed that work to the value of some £240,000 has been approved by the North Wales Power Company since the end of the war, of which work to the value of some £76,000 has already been carried out, and that in addition the company have under consideration work to the value of £330,000. The greater part of such work represents development in rural areas. With regard to the second part, no such schemes are being held up pending nationalisation. On the contrary, it is my desire that all normal development of this kind should proceed, though, of course, the rate of progress must depend on the availability of labour and materials. As has already been announced, the electricity supply industry has given me an assurance that all normal development will proceed in the interim period.
Is it not a fact that this company has issued a statement that the Ministry have told them they must not embark on heavy expenditure on electricity, power, and light in this area pending nationalisation?
I am certainly not aware of any such statement. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bring it to my notice.
Coal Industry
Manpower
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of miners employed at the coalface at 30th November, 1938, and the tonnage of coal per man produced as compared to manpower and tonnage at 30th November, 1945.
No direct comparison is possible owing to the change in the definition of face workers introduced at the end of 1942. Output per manshift worked at the face during November, 1938, corrected so far as possible in respect of the above change, was approximately 2.93 tons, as compared with 2.78 tons in November, 1945.
Plymouth Colliery, Pentrebach
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the Plymouth Colliery, Pentrebach, is not in production.
Plymouth pit was closed in 1940 and drastic reorganisation and new equipment would be necessary to achieve satisfactory production from it. There is a general shortage of skilled underground mining labour in South Wales and any men who may become available could be employed to greater advantage at other working collieries in this area.
In spite of the fact that this colliery may need re-equipping, is it not a fact that there are hundreds of mineworkers in the vicinity? Why are they not working this pit when coal is so short, and why are they drawing unemployment benefit?
I do not know where my hon. Friend gets his information from about hundreds and thousands of men. I would like to know.
I have been grossly misrepresented. I did not say "hundreds of thousands"; I said "a large number."
Opencast Coal
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, in view of the fact that the Government have a virtual monopoly in opencast coal working, what is the present estimated average cost per ton of producing opencast coal in the South Yorkshire district.
The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. Opencast coal is produced largely by private contractors working under contracts for my Department. Separate figures for South Yorkshire are not maintained, but the estimated average production cost of opencast coal in Yorkshire, including both South and West Yorkshire districts, for the eight months April to November, 1945, is 27s. 9d. per ton.
Output
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement in regard to the output of coal in the month of December, 1945.
In each of the first three of the five weeks covered by the return for December, 1945, there was a satisfactory rise in the output of coal. In the third of these weeks, this increase amounted to nearly 150,000 tons. As is customary, there was a slight setback in the week immediately preceding Christmas and in Christmas week itself there was a very substantial fall in output. The official holidays over the Christmas period accounted for a loss of 250,000 tons; the remainder of the loss sustained was due to the substantial number of men who did no work in Christmas week.
South Wales Ports
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making the ports in South Wales free ports, as in New York and prewar Hamburg, to meet the situation that has arisen in view of the loss of the export coal trade.
No, Sir. Such arrangements could not be limited to South Wales, and I doubt if they would increase our exports.
Employment
Building Trades (Training)
asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-Service applicants who have applied for training in the building trades and who have been rejected by his Department.
20,020 ex-Service applicants have applied for training in the building trades, of whom 2,921 have been rejected because they are not in need of training to obtain suitable work or are regarded as not suitable for building work.
In view of the need for labour in the building trades, is it in the national interest to deter men who are anxious to take up building work?
These applications are decided by a panel of employers and workers and they decide each individual case.
When these men have been accepted for vocational training, are they informed of that fact, in addition to being placed on the waiting list?
Yes, Sir.
Building Industry, Scotland
asked the Minister of Labour, if he will state the approximate number of insured men between the ages of 16 and 65 years in employment in the building industry in Scotland on 31st December, 1945.
I regret that the information desired is not available.
Is the Minister aware that, in this House on 11th December, he said that 35,000 men were employed in the building industry in Scotland? Why cannot he give the comparable figures for December, 1945?
Without looking at that question again I would not like to say where it is different. This was a question about insured men between the ages of 16 and 65 in employment in the building industry. During that period, rapid changes were occurring, and figures for Great Britain only are available. We have no corresponding figures for the wastage or intake.
Hebrides
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of registered unemployed in Stornoway; what percentage of the registered total of men this represents; whether he is aware that schemes of road, pier and bridge-building, which would absorb almost all that labour, are being delayed by the county councils; and what urgent employment plans he has for the Hebrides.
At 10th December, 1945, the latest date for which figures are available, 1,196 insured persons were registered at the Stornoway Employment Exchange as unemployed. The total number of insured persons in December is not known and the percentage of unemployed cannot therefore be calculated. With regard to the third part of the Question, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport that the county councils have discussed with his Department two road and bridge building schemes, but that he is unable at the present time to offer grants in aid of these schemes which the councils would regard as sufficient to enable them to put the works in hand. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the position in the Hebrides is being considered by representatives of all Departments concerned. Any recommendations which they may make will be carefully considered.
Is the Minister aware that, while unemployment in the island is already grave, it is becoming worse because of demobilisation? Is he aware that the county councils are not even putting forward claims for financial grants for public works schemes which were already contemplated and ready before the war? Will he give me any further assurance that more urgent consideration will be given to the problem?
I will give the hon. Member the assurance that I will take this matter up again with the other Departments concerned.
May I ask the Minister how his answer squares with the policy of full employment which was promised to Scotland?
Labour Grievances (Settlement)
asked the Minister of Labour whether in order to avoid prolonged delays incurring the risks of strikes, he has any proposals for speeding up discussions of grievances between trade unions and bodies of employers.
I am fully in agreement with the view that it is in the interests of both management and workers that grievances should be dealt with speedily, but I cannot accept the suggestion that, in general, the operation of joint voluntary machinery is subject to prolonged delays. The settlement of differences is the responsibility of the industry concerned, but my officers will, where necessary, continue to do all they can to secure the prompt attention of both sides of difficulties as they arise.
Service Personnel (Civilian Work)
asked the Minister of Labour how many men of the R.N., Army and R.A.F., respectively, were, on or about 15th January, employed on whole-time work for civilian firms or Government Departments; and how many of such men received no remuneration other than their Service pay and allowances.
I assume that the hon. Member has in mind Service personnel loaned to civilian employment in the course of their Service duties, not those who have been released in Class B or who are on the reserve. The latest information available relates to the fortnight ending 6th January during which loans from the Services to civilian employment involved approximately 4,000 soldiers and 200 sailors. These men were loaned on a temporary basis and received no remuneration other than their Service pay and allowances.
Would not those men have been better employed doing that same work in their civilian jobs than by being lent from the Forces to civilian firms?
Except that those men were not on their civilian jobs.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how "personnel" can be "loaned"? Would he ask the Senior Burgess for Oxford University to teach his advisers the right use of words?
I make myself responsible for the answers I give to this House. My university was Hoxton, which I left at the age of 12.
Wire Rope (Women Workers)
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the appeals which have been made to his Department during the past 12 months by Hall's Barton Ropery Company, Limited, Hull, for fifty additional female operatives to assist in the production of wire rope with 800 tons of wire waiting for manufacture to fulfil outstanding orders; and if he is satisfied that in this and similar instances labour is being directed where employment is immediately available.
Yes, Sir, and during the past year 21 workers, of whom 15 were women, have been placed with this firm. My Department will continue to do all it can to help, but the problem of recruiting a large labour force is a very difficult one. The shortage of women workers locally is such that no women are registered as unemployed at the local employment exchange and the works are at Beverley, eight miles out of Hull, and not on the omnibus route from that town. Even if it were possible to bring in workers from outside there are no lodgings available. In any event, Hull also lacks labour and accommodation.
In cases like this, where the development of export trade depends upon the Minister of Labour releasing manpower, is contact maintained between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade?
Yes, Sir.
Resettlement Grants
asked the Minister of Labour on what ground resettlement grants are being refused to ex-Servicemen who are working directors of small private companies.
The primary object of the Resettlement Grants Scheme is to assist men and women who were owners of one-man businesses, or who were in work on their own account, which they had to relinquish as a direct consequence of their war service. Any extension to include members of limited liability companies would go beyond the objects for which the scheme was designed.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these small private companies are, to all intents and purposes, one-man businesses, and is there any reason for refusing to these people what is already given to members of private firms who may be much richer?
It all depends what is covered by the words "to all intents and purposes."
Disabled Persons, Edinburgh
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men enrolled on the disabled persons' employment register in Edinburgh since it was opened; and the number for whom suitable employment has been found.
The number of men registered as disabled at the six offices in the Edinburgh district by 17th December, 1945, was 830. Of this total 380 were unemployed at that date. Statistics of those who have been found employment since registration are not available.
Training
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the No. 17 Resettlement Unit at Stourport-on-Severn is unable to send men for industrial training, owing to the lack of Government instructional factories and instructors in the Midlands district; and what steps he intends taking in the future.
Owing to the number of applications which are being made for training, I am afraid there is at present a certain amount of delay in allocating men to training centres. But two training centres are now in operation in Birmingham and in view of the number of applications for training I hope to open four further centres at an early date in this area. In addition, four more centres are being built. With few exceptions, no difficulty has been found in getting instructors.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Servicemen and ex-Servicewomen have applied for the further education and training, the vocational training and the business training schemes; how many have been accepted and how many have commenced training.
The information for which the hon. Member has asked is as follows:
Further Education and Training Scheme
Separate statistics as to ex-Service personnel were not kept prior to 1st November, 1945. It is, however, estimated that up to 31st December, 1945, about 10,000 have made application and about 4,600 have been accepted. Those accepted have for the most part commenced training.
Vocational Training Scheme
The number of applications has not been recorded. For the three months ended 12th January, 1946, the numbers of ex-Service men and women who have accepted and commenced training are as follows: Accepted, 15,946; Commenced, 4,767.
Business Training Scheme
Particulars of the Business Training Scheme have just been published, and courses will not commence until April.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will ensure that any applicant for training under a scheme in the resettlement plan shall receive an affirmative or negative answer within one month.
Every effort is being made to secure that any application for training under the Ministry's schemes shall receive a definite decision at the earliest moment, and whenever possible within a month; but I should not like to give too definite an undertaking because of certain cases in which special inquiries have to be made and these naturally take time.
asked the Minister of Labour whether there are vocational training courses for ex-Servicemen in plastics and in the printing trade.
It has been agreed, following consultations with the plastics industry, that the industry will set up training schemes which will be open to suitable ex-Servicemen and women who wish to enter the industry. As regards the printing industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) on 22nd January.
With regard to the last part of the Question, is there any reason why there should not be a vocational course in this very important industry of printing?
I am not sufficiently associated with that industry to be able to answer that question, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Joint Industrial Council are actively dealing with this matter, and I know they are anxious to help.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take all possible steps to have this done as soon as possible?
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Service-men have applied for vocational training courses since last July in Class A releases and as disabled men; and how many have started their courses.
The exact information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member is not available. Since November, 3,075 disabled ex-Servicemen, most of whom were discharged on medical grounds, have been accepted for training and of these 1,450 have commenced training.
Will the Minister do all he can to speed up the closing of the gap between the time when men apply to go on these courses and the time when they actually attend? There is a very long delay.
Most of the people who are waiting are not all unemployed. They have got work of some character but they are anxious to be trained for other work, and, as this training of disabled men requires a special technique, we are anxious not to take them on before we are quite sure they are capable of doing a job and that there will be work available for them.
Catering Industry (Training)
asked the Minister of Labour what action he proposes to take in the light of the recent Report of the Catering Wages Commission with regard to the provision of adequate training facilities for persons desiring to enter the catering industry.
I welcome this report, and in general its recommendations have been accepted by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland who are actively engaged in considering the provision of training facilities. My Department is also making arrangements under the Government Vocational Training Scheme for adults who wish to enter the catering industry.
I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his answer
What is the difference between "engaged" and "actively engaged"?
Wool Textile Industry
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the present labour force in the wool textile industry is 150,000 against 220,000 in 1939, and what steps he proposes to take to release former women workers in this industry who are still retained in engineering shops.
Yes, Sir. In consultation with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, I have taken special measures to assist recruitment of workers to the wool textile industry, particularly in the combing and spinning sections. Except in special circumstances permission is given to workers who wish to leave their present employment to return to wool textile occupations.
Is the Minister aware that these women were compulsorily transferred from the textile industry to work of a different nature?
People were compelled to do war service, but now that industrial activity is to find its proper level the workers should have the right to find their own employment.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of 100,000 workers in the West Riding of Yorkshire alone, and will he do all he can to secure the freedom of these women to carry on this work?
Demobilisation
Women
asked the Minister of Labour if he will now take Service women out of the compulsory scheme, allowing those who desire to leave to do so and relying on volunteers for the numbers required.
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) on 6th November last, a copy of which I am sending him and to which I have nothing to add.
South American Citizens
asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider, in conjunction with the Service Departments, the immediate demobilisation, irrespective of their age and service groups, of the many thousands of men from Argentina, Brazil and Chile who, owing no allegiance to this country and not being subject to conscription, volunteered their services for the duration of the war.
The position of volunteers from overseas who are serving in the British Forces is at present under consideration, but there can be no general departure from the age and length of service scheme.
Is the Minister aware that these men from South America, because of the difficulty of getting passages home, are three months later in getting home than corresponding men in this country, and is it not fair to give them some special treatment?
No, Sir. I can add nothing to the answer I have given.
Building Workers
asked the Minister of Labour which age and service release groups in the Army, R.N. and R.A.F., had been offered release under Class B by 31st December, 1945, in each of the following trades: bricklayers, carpenters, plasterers, plumbers, painters, slaters and tilers, respectively.
The trades to which my hon. Friend refers include some 32 different types of operative and the groups to which offers of release are made vary in each case according to the numbers required. Detailed information as to the groups which each Service had reached by 31st December in making offers to men in these occupations is not readily available, but just over 166,000 offers of release in Class B had by then been made to building trade operatives.
Is the Minister aware that hon. Members are receiving hundreds of letters from building operatives in the Forces, from the age of 36 upwards, who are puzzled because they have not been offered release under this scheme? Will he consult with the Service Ministers to see whether it is possible to make this information public at regular intervals?
I understand that full information has been continuously given. The fact is that we take releases under Class B in the proper order of the numbers of the groups, and do not jump up to Group 45 until we have done Groups 44 and 43 and so on.
Release Rates (R.A.F. and R.N.)
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the slow rate of Class A releases from the R.A.F. compared with the rapid rate of such releases from the R.N., he will take steps to transfer men from the R.N. to the R.A.F. in order to secure a more even rate of release in the two Services.
No, Sir; the R.A.F. have in fact released a slightly higher percentage of their V.E.-day strength than has the Royal Navy. There is therefore no case for the transfer of men on the grounds proposed by the hon. Member.
Is the Minister aware that the rate of release by groups is far more backward in the Royal Air Force, as compared with the Navy? Does he remember that during the war compulsory transfers were made from one Service to another in order to make up the numbers, and will he not consider such a policy now?
No, Sir. We are not prepared to make any variation in the scheme.
Volunteer Mineworkers
asked the Minister of Labour if he will now say when the men who were in the Forces, and who volunteered to come out and work in the mines, will be released from their special liability.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 18th December last to the hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bewdley (Major Conant), a copy of which I am sending him.
Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider these men on the age-and-service basis?
The reply I gave to the previous Question was very long and definite, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would look at it and then communicate with me if there is any point he wishes to raise.
asked the Minister of Labour if, when men are released from the Forces of their own choice to enter scheduled employment such as the mines, they are informed that under the Essential Work Order they cannot leave when their demobilisation group becomes due.
Full and detailed information is given to members of the Forces who are offered release in Class B.
Class B Release Delays
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the particulars sent to him of the Class B release of a veterinary surgeon which took eleven weeks to effect after the Ministry of Agriculture recommended it, and of the Class B release of a surveyor urgently required for housing which took ten weeks to effect after the Ministry of Works recommended it; and whether he will consider endeavouring to reduce such delays, which are holding up the work of the country, by greater decentralisation, more use of inter-Departmental meetings, quicker inter-Departmental communication, or otherwise.
I have looked into these two individual cases and regret the delay which took place in effecting release in Class B. I am assured that they are not truly representative. Whilst decentralisation is not practicable, measures to expedite Class B release have recently been adopted including the speeding-up of inter-Departmental communication, instructing Service units to take urgent action immediately they receive an offer of release in Class B, and providing for priority of transport for personnel serving overseas who accept such offers.
Is the Prime Minister aware that those instructions have been given before and have not had the slightest effect, and will he say what reason there is for not having an independent inquiry into these delays which are holding up the work of the country?
I do not think an independent inquiry would quicken things at all.
Military Service
Youths
asked the Minister of Labour how long youths now being called up will be compelled to remain in the Services.
I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 24th January, to which I am unable to add.
While bearing in mind the previous reply given by the Minister, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will establish a minimum period—should we say 18 months or two years—so that those now being called up can get a chance of making arrangements for their future careers?
Any such expression would be a matter of opinion not based on any reliable data, but I agree it is essential we should get the information as soon as possible. At the moment, the Government are actively engaged in endeavouring to get the necessary data upon which to determine the length of service.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that it is utterly unprecedented in this or any other country for men to be called up for military service in peacetime for an indeterminate period, and can he say when he will be in a position to make a statement?
I am not prepared to pledge myself to that, but I think the situation of the country is utterly unprecedented now.
Science Students
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, at the present time, students of ability and promise are being taken away from the Imperial College of Science and Technology and similar institutions because of the restrictive regulations imposed by him with regard to the number of entrants permitted to university science courses; and whether, in view of the need of training the maximum number of scientific students at the earliest opportunity, he will take steps to overhaul and abolish all regulations on this matter which are no longer essential.
I am aware that students at the Imperial College of Science and Technology and similar institutions who started courses at their own risk, not having been granted deferment, are being withdrawn. Whilst realising the necessity for maintaining a flow of trained scientific workers, I must at the same time have regard to the necessity for finding men to meet the needs of the Forces and to maintain the smooth working of demobilisation. I cannot at present say what arrangements it will be necessary to make in respect of the next academic year, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the whole question of the deferment of students is being actively considered.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some students of high promise who, at the present time, are not able to continue their courses, and cannot be called up because of their low medical category, and are, therefore, compelled to pursue blind-alley jobs because of these Regulations?
I was not aware of that, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have the facts I will go into the matter.
Questions
Visa Application (Merchant Seaman)
asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the case in which the hon. Member for Twickenham asked the Foreign Office to deal with the application of a merchant seaman, free of national service obligations, for help in obtaining a visa to enable him to join his wife in America and received an answer nine weeks later referring him to the Ministries of Labour and War Transport, and leaving the question of a visa in abeyance; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the possibility of reducing such delays which cause great hardship.
I understand that the precise point raised in the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers was the first of its kind to come to the attention of the Departments concerned and that careful examination was required before a decision could be reached as to the procedure which the hon. Member's constituent would need to follow. I understand, however, that the answer, when finally given, contained both advice as to the proper course to be followed so that the hon. Member's constituent could satisfy the United States authorities as to his discharge and his consequent eligibility for a visa, and suggestions as to how to obtain a passage to the United States. I also understand that a visa has now been obtained. As regards the last part of the Question, every effort will continue to be made to ensure that where inter-Departmental consultation is necessary the minimum of delay is involved in reaching a decision.
Did the Prime Minister observe that nine weeks passed before any reply was received, and does he realise that nothing would so increase the popularity of the Government as improving its technique in meeting the problems and difficulties of the individual citizen?
Equal Pay (Royal Commission)
asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay may be expected.
I am informed that the Commission have finished taking evidence, and are considering their report. They cannot yet say when this will be ready.
Atomic Energy
Government Plans
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have any further plans for developing the use of atomic energy in this country.
The House will recall that on 29th October last I announced that the Government had decided to set up a research and experimental establishment at Harwell, near Didcot, to be concerned with all aspects of the use of atomic energy. This establishment will require fissile material for its work, and the Government have accordingly had under consideration the most suitable organisation for the production of such material for this and other purposes. The abject in view will be to make available as speedily as possible material in sufficient quantity to enable us to take advantage rapidly of technical developments as they occur, and to develop our programme for the use of atomic energy, as circumstances may require. The production of these materials will be a responsibility of the Ministry of Supply and the appropriate organisation is being set up within that Department.
The choice of a suitable head for this organisation is clearly a matter of supreme importance, and for this new post the Government have been fortunate in securing the services of Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Portal of Hungerford. I am also happy to be able to inform the House that a very distinguished scientist in the person of Professor J. D. Cockcroft has been selected for the post of director of the research establishment at Harwell. Professor Cockcroft is at present director of the Canadian experimental atomic energy plant, and it has been arranged with the Canadian authorities that he should remain in Canada for the time being until they have been able to appoint a successor to him in that capacity.
Will the Prime Minister inform the House when building operations will commence at Didcot and when it is likely that this station will be in action?
Not at present.
Will the Prime Minister consider issuing at an early opportunity a statement on the purposes for which the research is taking place as between research on the construction of the atomic bomb and various peaceful developments?
If my hon. and gallant Friend had followed my reply he would have seen that at present the object is to provide materials for atomic research.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the supply of fissile material will be the responsibility of the Board of Trade?
No, Sir, it is under the Ministry of Supply.
They split more easily there.
Has the Prime Minister received any report on the progress made with atomic energy in connection with the motor car?
No, Sir.
Can the Prime Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all sources of supply of fissile material are being brought under public control?
The whole of this is under public control.
Bomb Tests
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made with the U.S.A. regarding the pooling of information with Great Britain obtained as a result of the use to date of atomic bombs; and if any British military or naval advisers have been invited to be present at the experiments which are about to be carried out in the Pacific in the use of these bombs against obsolete warships.
We have throughout worked in close consultation with the United States Government on this, as on other aspects of atomic energy. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) yesterday.
In view of the fact that the early experiments were very largely started in this country and we shared our secrets with the United States, does the answer of the Prime Minister mean that the United States acknowledges our right to share in the results of these experiments?
No, Sir. My answer states that we are working in close co-operation with the United States. The answer I gave yesterday showed we are in close consultation on the question of these experiments.
Questions
Petroleum Warfare Department
asked the Prime Minister why the Petroleum Warfare Department is being transferred to the Ministry of Supply; how many of the experts employed by the Department are being released; whether their experiments have all been concluded; and, if not, what provisions are being made for further developments of these experiments.
It is intended that with effect from 1st February, the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production shall undertake responsibility for research and development for flame warfare. This involves the transfer to the Ministry of the remaining staff of the Petroleum Warfare Department, all other experimental work of the Department having been already completed or closed down.
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that all experimental work on fog dispersal is also finished and not being gone on with?
No, Sir. That is being carried on at Farnborough under the Ministry of Supply.
Hungary (Transport)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the Hungarian transport, of all kinds, looted by the Germans from the Hungarians, is now being used to feed the Germans; and will he give the necessary instructions for that transport to be returned to Hungary immediately so that what food there is can be brought to Budapest and its starving population.
I have no evidence that transport was looted from Hungary by the Germans, but particulars are being sought from the Hungarian Government. Looted equipment would have to be identified before it could be returned and in any case the question whether ex-enemy countries are to benefit from restitution measures imposed on Germany is one of principle which awaits decision by the Occupying Powers. Meanwhile, every effort is being made to use transport equipment to the best advantage of Europe as a whole.
Will the hon. Gentleman read the two helpful and sympathetic answers which I got yesterday from the Foreign Office, and will he co-operate with the Foreign Office to try to stave off this terrible disaster in Hungary?
I do not think the disaster in Hungary to which reference is made is due to the looting of transport by the Germans. Quite a large amount of Hungarian transport was voluntarily evacuated Westwards as part of the war movements. That is probably one of the reasons why Hungarian transport is in Germany. The matter is one for the Control Council and is receiving the necessary attention.
Germany
Ex-Nazis (Employment)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to provide work and occupation for those individuals who, because of their association with the Nazi Party, have been turned out of their normal means of employment; and what are the numbers now accommodated in camps.
Ex-Nazis who have been removed from their employment but are not interned are required to register at the labour offices; they are subject to direction into types of employment, mainly manual, where they are likely to give least trouble. With other former black-coat workers they are eligible for a limited number of training courses in building trades. The number held in internment camps is approximately 40,000.
Poles (Repatriation)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give an assurance that pressure is not being brought to bear on Poles in the British-occupied zone to return to Poland against their will.
I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to bring pressure to bear on Poles in the British Zone to return to Poland against their will. I have taken steps to ensure that this policy is strictly observed.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently instructions were given by the Military Government that pressure was to be exerted? In addition to making this policy of the Government widely known would he make sure that the War Office understands, as local commanders apparently do not?
The instructions to military commanders are issued by the British element of the control authority. These instructions have been very clear. They do not permit of any pressure being placed upon the Poles who do not wish to return. If there have been any breaches of the instructions issued they should be covered by the instructions that have since been issued to all concerned, that the policy must be strictly carried out.
Does that extend to all nationalities? Are none of them under pressure to return to countries where their apprehension is desired?
It applies to all displaced persons of Allied nationality.
Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that pressure is not being brought to bear on Poles not to return?
Certainly, I can give that assurance, so far as our authorities are concerned. If there is propaganda from unofficial sources, that is another matter.
Questions
Austria (Allied Council)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the size of the British element of the Allied Council for Austria; and how many of its personnel are military and how many are civilians.
The Allied Control Council for Austria is a quadripartite body on which each of the occupying Powers has one representative, who is the Commander-in-Chief.
National Finance
Communication Services (Staff Pensions)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the ex gratia pensions which were granted to some 2,000 of the staffs of the associated telegraph companies, Marconi Radio and the Imperial Beam, when they became redundant owing to the amalgamation of the communication services, will be continued when the services become public property.
I will bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend when settling the details of the transfer of Cable and Wireless to public ownership.
U.N.R.R.A. (British Funds)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has control of the expenditure of British funds by U.N.R.R.A.
Such expenditure is based on programmes agreed between U.N.R.R.A. and the appropriate Departments of His Majesty's Government and approved by the Treasury.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that U.N.R.R.A. is now handling such things as ladies' fully-fashioned silk stockings, and will he see whether these luxury goods are paid for by the recipients and what is the quantity involved?
I will have a good look at it.
Purchase Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Purchase Tax is being charged on certain manufactured articles, while in the case of others of apparently the same class, value and quality, no such charge is made; and what action he is taking to remedy such anomalies.
If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars, I will have them examined.
I have the particulars here. They are two rulers; one is 7½d., the other 6d. One has Purchase Tax, the other has not.
Minister's Visit, Mediterranean
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the expenses of the Minister of Education's visit to Tangier and Gibraltar is being defrayed out of public funds.
My right hon. Friend paid her own fare to Gibraltar and was conveyed from Gibraltar to Tangier by a R.A.F. launch which would have made the journey even without her. The answer, therefore, is the cost of a seat in this launch.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the right hon. Lady took any advisers with her, and what was the size of the party?
I could not say.
Postwar Credits
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make provisions in his next Budget either to repay postwar credits during the next financial year or to pay interest on the people's money whilst the State continues to use it.
I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await my Budget statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many old people in this country who have a very short expectation of life would like the use of their postwar credits, and that there are many ex-Servicemen who wish to start up in business who are also in need of them? It is a right of British people to receive interest on the money which was borrowed.
In that case, it is an odd thing that my predecessor did not make any such provision.
Requisitioned Land and War Works Act (Section 45)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have appointed a day for the purposes of Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.
Yes, Sir. 24th February next.
British Council and Travel Association (Grants)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present grants to the British Council and to the Travel Association; and whether, in view of the fact that increased grants to the Travel Association would not only bring valuable foreign exchange to this country, but enable many foreigners to appreciate British culture, he will arrange that, at the earliest opportunity, the Travel Association shall receive at least as much assistance as the British Council.
£3,500,000 and £15,000 respectively. Less will be spent on the British Council, and more on the Travel Association, in the next financial year. But I cannot promise exact equality.
United States Loan
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that arrangements are being made to take the place of the U.S. loan to this country, should Congress not ratify the agreement.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).
In view of the growing danger that the Congress of the United States may ratify the loan to Britain, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider whether the refusal of the Soviet Government to ratify the Bretton Woods Agreement cannot provide us with an avenue of escape from that one before irreparable damage has been done?
War Damage Payments
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now any further statement to make regarding settlement of claims for household property and goods destroyed by enemy action in this country.
No, Sir. The date of payment must depend not only on financial considerations but also on the availability of supplies.
Copper Coinage
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that business people are being inconvenienced by a shortage of copper coinage; and whether any measures are being taken to remove this difficulty.
Temporary local shortages of pence have occurred in some districts at Christmas time. One hundred and twenty million pence have been issued since October, 1944, and production is being maintained at the highest possible level.
Civil Service
Essential Work Order
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of a girl clerk, 23 years of age, in the Inland Revenue who was recently summoned for leaving her department without permission and upon whom the magistrates imposed only a nominal fine of 10s. and allowed no costs to the prosecution; and whether, in these circumstances, it is his intention to continue to summon temporary civil servants who, in the absence of any adequate demobilisation scheme, feel obliged to give up their present Government employment.
Yes, Sir. This case came before a local appeal board when the decision of the Department and of the national service officer to refuse permission to leave was confirmed. This lady is an established civil servant and the shortage of trained staff is still such that we must continue to apply the provisions of the Essential Work Order to the Civil Service.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary civil servants have been prosecuted during the past six months for leaving the Civil Service without official permission; and how many have done so without being prosecuted.
The answer to the first part of the Question is six. No information is available relating to the second part.
Manpower
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how far he anticipates that the number of persons in the Civil Service is likely to fall below the 600,000 level during 1946; what is the present approximate annual cost of the Civil Service after allowing for the recent increases in pay; and how this cost compares with that in 1939.
I hope that substantial reductions in the number of non-industrial Civil Servants will be achieved during 1946. But I am unable to say whether the number will fall below 600,000 during 1946. As to costs I would ask the hon. Member to await the completion of the Estimates for 1946.
There is no difficulty on earth. Is the Minister aware of the reception in certain areas of the recent announcement regarding the increase in pay of civil servants announced on the same day that the farm workers' application for increased wages was turned down?
Questions
Hansard (Bound Volumes)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why, up to the day of the Christmas Adjournment, only one bound volume of HANSARD, covering the period 1st to 24th August, has been issued in this Parliament; and if he will give an assurance that these volumes will be forthcoming in the future with the same expedition as has obtained in former Parliaments.
The second bound volume, due shortly before the House adjourned for Christmas, was published on 7th January and the third will be available within a few days. The reason for the delay was the exceptional pressure on the printers of other Parliamentary work. The time lag on the three volumes now issued for this Parliament is, in fact, much less than on the six 1945 volumes issued during the last Parliament. I am happy to assure the hon. Member that in a very short time I hope to be able to say that these bound volumes are appearing with pre-war regularity.
British Broadcasting Corporation
European and Overseas Services
asked the Minister of Information how much time is now devoted every 24 hours to European and overseas broadcasts; and how this time compares with that allotted to these services on VJ-Day.
In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply. On 1st January, 1946, the time devoted to European broadcasts was 29 hours, 18 minutes, per day and to overseas broadcasts 68 hours, 35 minutes. Comparable figures are 27 hours, 1 minute, and 71 hours, 15 minutes, on 1st August, 1945.
asked the Minister of Information how many executive officials are now employed in the overseas service of the B.B.C.; and how many were employed on VJ-Day, or some convenient date at about that time.
The number of executive officials employed in the overseas service of the B.B.C. on 1st August, 1945, was 448, and the number employed on 1st January, 1946, was 404.
asked the Minister of Information how many executive officials are now employed in the European service of the B.B.C; and how many were employed on VJ-Day, or some convenient date at about that time.
The number of executive officials employed in the European Service of the B.B.C. on 1st August, 1945, was 495, and the number employed on the 1st January, 1946, was 453.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases these officials are much more timid about presenting the British case than they were during the war, and would he see to it that we give as wide publicity as possible to the great varieties of British democracy?
I will take that up in the proper quarter.
Wireless Licence Charges
asked the Minister of Information, whether, before any final decision is made with regard to the increased licence fees to be charged for wireless and television licences in this country, he will set up a committee to review the present activities of the B.B.C, to examine to what extent its present programmes meet public requirements, and what other sources of possible revenue exist in addition to licence receipts; and to advise whether the present Charter should be modified.
In the absence of my right hon. Friend overseas, I have been asked to reply. The decision to increase the licence charge has been reached by the Government after full consideration of all relevant financial considerations. The other issues to which my hon. Friend refers are under active consideration by the Government and my right hon. Friend does not think that it is necessary to appoint a special Committee. Public opinion expresses itself freely on B.B.C. programmes, and the House may be sure that note will be taken of criticisms.
Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that there is great public concern about this, and see to it that a proper inquiry is made before a final decision is come to with regard to the future of the B.B.C.? Will he also see whether it is possible to release certain sections of the people, such as the old age pensioners, from paying the proposed additional charge?
Certainly, Sir. My hon. Friend may be sure that the Government will take into the fullest account the consideration to which he has drawn attention. I think, however, that it would be difficult to start a device whereby special charges would be made to special people. It must be remembered that the charge of £1 per year is really very modest, if it is properly regarded.
Can the Lord President explain the technical process of raising the fee? What procedure is necessary to make the new charge valid and what, if any, opportunities for Parliamentary discussion does that procedure allow? Can we have an answer to that?
The procedure is that there is a decision of the Government, which will proceed when the licence fees are collected.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be grave dissatisfaction amongst Scottish listeners at paying a double fee for a programme with which they are already profoundly dissatisfied?
I think that all these allegations of special tightness about money and meanness on the part of the population of Scotland are a grave libel on that great country.
Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making provision for licences to be payable quarterly, or at least half-yearly, instead of annually?
We did very carefully consider the possibility of half-yearly payments, but the cost of the administration and officials needed would be out of proportion to the advantages to be secured. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is attractive, but those were the difficulties.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider again the great dissatisfaction which exists in England with the nature of the programmes now given by the B.B.C., and will he look again at the whole question of the higher licence fee before a decision is made?
I could make a great speech on the deficiencies of the programmes myself, as could every hon. Member of this House, but I am sure that we should all contradict each other at the end of the day. The fact is that if the institution is to pay its way, and if there is to be room for development in an improving direction, I can assure the House that it just cannot be done on 10s. a year.
rose —
I would remind the House that we are now awaiting a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.
R.A.F. Demobilisation
Complaints by Personnel (Eastern Stations)
I wish, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the recent instances of dissatisfaction at Royal Air Force stations in the East in reply to the Question put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan).
The facts are that incidents have occurred at 12 stations. I am glad to say that at 11 stations men have returned to duty and that they will be returning to work at the 12th station tomorrow. I have personally examined the reports of the commanding officers about the complaints of the men at these stations and I am satisfied that the detailed points raised by the men are being most adequately and carefully dealt with in every case. The fullest and most up to date information is being sent out to all Royal Air Force stations in the form of a special series of signals called Demobforms and is being amplified in personal signals to the commanders-in-chief, dealing with complaints voiced by the men on this occasion.
The main and natural concern of the men is, however, with the general rate of demobilisation. Their desire to return home and to civilian life will be understood and sympathised with by all members of the House. But if we are to secure the fruits of victory we must carry out the commitments we have undertaken in all parts of the world. These commitments which are essential to future peace, inevitably throw heavy burdens on all the Services and they deserve our gratitude. The Government need no reminder of the urgency of the maximum acceleration of demobilisation. For some time now a special inquiry has been afoot into the possibility of more rapid and extensive reductions in the Forces and the result will be announced as soon as the inquiry is completed.
In the meanwhile, I take this opportunity to emphasise that the general rate of demobilisation from the three Services taken together has not been slowed up since the end of the year, and the Royal Air Force is abreast of the other Services. The particular number released in any given month may vary within fairly narrow limits—rather fewer men will be released from the Royal Air Force in February than either January or March, for example. But the general rate of some 100,000 men a week from the three Services is being maintained. Some men in the Royal Air Force have evidently received the impression that there has been a slowing up in the rate of release. This is no doubt because fewer groups are being released each month than before the end of last year; but this is accounted for by the fact that the Royal Air Force release groups now being reached are almost twice as large as the earlier release groups. Therefore the release of each group now means the demobilisation of something like double the number of men. To deal with the tremendous task of demobilising millions of men and women it is essential to follow a definite plan which does sometimes involve some local and sectional hardship. But the inequality of release between trades, inevitable in a technical Service like the Royal Air Force, has steadily decreased, and the numbers whose release is delayed behind the normal now represent about 3 per cent. of the whole.
The facts about demobilisation are being fully and regularly explained to the men, and I attach the greatest importance to the use of this machinery of information. It will naturally be used to keep the Forces abreast of the plans which are being made to accelerate release. Refusals of duty on the part of any units can only slow down the accelerated release we all want to achieve. I must make it quite clear that there will be no concession to indiscipline. If men undertake the unwarrantable step of refusing duty, this can only result in disciplinary action. Proper channels exist for the statement of grievances. These channels are fully open.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, of saying how much I regret the misunderstanding that took place yesterday. I was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had been informed in good time of my intention to raise this matter by Private Notice Question; but there was some mistake in his Department. I should not like him or the House to think me guilty of any discourtesy in the matter.
Arising out of this statement, perhaps I may ask two questions. First, may we take it that there have been no conditions of any kind accepted under which the men have returned to duty? I read somewhere in the Press—I hope it is not true—that there was some question of their return for 10 days, subject to some further reply being received. I trust we may take it no such conditions have been made or accepted? Secondly, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolutions which were sent to him by the men concerned, or sent to the Air Ministry, from the various stations. The terms of those resolutions were, indeed, rather alarming in the misconception which they revealed of the duty of every man in the Forces who has taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown. I trust that the situation there revealed will be put right. There is, perhaps, this to be said in mitigation: they were under a misunderstanding. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform us, what is true of these resolutions, that they are regarded as a complete breach of the real relations that exist between a serving soldier, sailor or airman to the Crown.
There is no question, of course, of any discourtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. This Question did reach me at a very late hour and I was not prepared to answer it yesterday. I have heard nothing officially whatever of any question of conditions. I cannot imagine that such exist. I have not actually received any official information from the men, though I have seen something in the Press. Obviously, as the right hon. Gentleman will gather from my answer, we intend to preserve the proper relationship that should exist between officers and men in the Services.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are a number of hon. Members of this House, of all parties, at present in India who have visited the stations concerned, and would he consider giving an assurance that until they have had an opportunity of reporting personally—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."]—to him and to this House no disciplinary action will be taken against the organisers of these extremely orderly strikes?
No.
Certainly not. The Members who are visiting part of the Commonwealth and Empire have an entirely different purpose, not to report on matters which are proper matters for the Government to deal with.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in connection with this dissatisfaction about demobilisation that a large number of the Servicemen and their families voted Labour for the reason that the speed of demobilisation would be increased, and that many voted for Labour candidates "to bring the boys home"? [ Interruption. ]
If there were not so much noise we might listen to the question.
The. point is—
On a point of Order. May I, Sir, with the greatest respect, ask you if there is any precedent for an occupant of the Chair to object to hon. Members expressing their agreement or disagreement in a perfectly constitutional manner?
The Noble Lord is entirely wrong. It is for the Chair to direct the House as to how it will behave. I tell the Noble Lord, quite frankly, that I think there has been far too much noise today. We really want serious consideration for matters that will come before us today and to listen to arguments without undue heat.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the grave dissatisfaction amongst these people about the slowness in demobilisation; and is he aware that the incitement to revolt came largely from Members of this House? [ Interruption. ]
With regard to the last part of the question, I have no information. I made it abundantly clear, and so did my colleagues, at the time of the General Election that we intended to stand by the plan laid down by the previous Government. I am well aware that there were people standing for election in various parties who may have encouraged people to think demobilisation would be much quicker than was possible. But we have carried out our pledges, and demobilisation has been accelerated. I would say that anybody who likes to encourage dissatisfaction about demobilisation in the very difficult circumstances of the day is doing very ill service.
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very acute dissatisfaction in the Royal Air Force overseas at the number of personnel in Transport Command who are there to assist in bringing home a comparatively small number of Army personnel? Will he consider arranging for the Secretary of State for Air or the Under-Secretary to pay a visit overseas, as the War Minister did a few months ago to military units, to meet R.A.F. people to explain the situation to them?
I think members of the Royal Air Force realise they are doing a very good service to all three Services in assisting in bringing back people from overseas. I would point out that one cannot have it both ways. If you want to speed up demobilisation you cannot at the same time demobilise the people bringing about demobilisation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to bring home to the men that the reason for the delay in their demobilisation has nothing to do with what is taking place in Indonesia, because correspondence I have received has given me the impression that they are being told that that is one of the reasons why they are not being brought back?
I hope that point will be thoroughly realised.
Is demobilisation really being explained to the men? Is not the Prime Minister aware that it appears from our correspondence that the causes of misunderstanding before these strikes—[ Interruption. ] They are called strikes in the Press, and I use that term not because I believe it. It does appear to us from our postbags that the causes of these difficulties—if you like—are lack of information, lack of convincing evidence, and lack of belief in the principles of equity as compared with the demobilisation of men at home. Will the Prime Minister see to it that proper information is given out to all?
I have already replied to that in the statement which I have made. The very fullest information has been given, is being given and will continue to be given, but it is astonishing how hard it is to make some people understand exactly what are the facts. I am sure that I can trust the Press to give us their assistance in this matter, in spreading the information as widely as possible.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member, like the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), to make a statement that Members of this party made Election promises directly contrary to those of their party leaders, without being made to specify the individuals in question?
I have no power to deal with matters of that kind. Hon. Members are entirely responsible for what they say, and I cannot make up their speeches for them.
Assurance Companies Bill
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 64.]
Business of the House
Proceedings on the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after a quarter past Nine o'clock.—[ The Prime Minister. ]
Orders of the Day
Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.32 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
A newspaper commentator who sits on the Opposition benches has suggested that this Bill for the nationalisation of the coal industry will require more indulgence than is customary in this House. He was mistaken. The Government ask for no indulgence, but for an impartial and objective analysis, which simply means that hon. Members on the Opposition benches should abandon their traditional prejudices. There is a reasoned Amendment on the Order Paper, which indicates a disagreement with this Measure. This may drive us along party lines into separate Lobbies, but I would remind hon. Members that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Mining Association have accepted the principle of nationalisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On 13th October, 1943, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) declared: vance, but the opinions of technical experts will afford them no encouragement. Naturally, our purpose is to raise output, thus reducing costs of production which will assist in the restoration and maintenance of British trade. We must stimulate the export trade in coal so as to pay for imports, and provide the necessary improvements in labour conditions for those employed in the industry. But these purposes cannot be achieved unless on the basis of a long term plan, embodying the highest technical efficiency.
We cannot recover from long years of persistent neglect and inefficiency in the mining industry by improvisation, any more than the operations of D-Day proved successful without careful planning over a long period of time Nevertheless, some improvement will ensue, but the vast reorganisation required by the industry cannot immediately be achieved. The Reid Report was emphatic on this issue. In a reference to the subject of reorganisation it declares: ever vain the desire may be, to be installed in Government some other day.
My initial experience of Government administration was as Secretary of Mines in the minority Labour Government of 1924. It was, as regards coal production, a normal year. The industry had emerged from the controls exercised in the first World War. It had weathered the storm of 1921 when a grave dispute impeded our industrial recovery. In 1924, peace was more or less restored; but contrast the position in that year alongside 1945. In 1924, 2,718 pits were producing coal. The number of men on the colliery books was 1,172,000 and the output of coal was 267,000,000 tons. On the other hand in 1945 the number of operating pits was 1,634, the number of men employed had been reduced to 694,000, while the output of coal was 174,000,000 tons. It must be admitted that those figures, having regard to all the adverse factors, disclose a position not altogether unfavourable to the mine workers, but whatever the cause, the serious reduction in output creates a most distressing situation, which has a profound bearing on the price of coal; it materially reduces our capacity for export, it inspires unrest, it creates confusion in the public mind, and therefore, demands the most intense concentration of our combined efforts technically, in the administrative sphere, and, above all, as regards the human relations within the industry.
It is my duty to warn the House that the existing position contains the elements of industrial disaster. In this context I speak without a trace of partisanship. The drift from the industry is appalling. The natural wastage cannot be overtaken by orthodox treatment. Relations between owners and men, generally speaking, are soured and embittered, and the efficiency of the industry relative to that of our Continental and other competitors is distinctly backward. It is not denied that frequent efforts have been made in the last 20 years to devise a remedy. I can hardly recall a Session of Parliament in that period without either a coal Debate or a coal crisis, yet every treatment prescribed to cure the malady, whether by the Sankey, Samuel or Coal Reorganisation Commissions, has resulted in failure. Nor should we forget that a Conservative Government nationalised the royalties, which it was thought would achieve amalgamations, thus promoting reorganisation. Yet all those devices have proved fruitless, as indeed would the proposals of Mr. Robert Foot or the Tory Reform Committee, for the reason that private interests within the industry, with a few honourable exceptions, will not move unless they are forced, that vast sums are required to meet the cost of reconstruction and that no comprehensive method of reorganisation is possible without cutting across a great mass of private interests and privileges.
In short, if this coal problem, which in magnitude transcends all other industrial problems, is to be solved, the Government, particularly in view of the unmistakable mandate they received from the electors on this issue, must prescribe the remedy which the Labour Movement has placed in the forefront of its programme for nearly half a century. Should any doubt still linger as to the propriety of effecting a change of ownership then the House should consider this picture. The Lanarkshire coalfield in Scotland is rapidly decaying. Its coal resources are declining fast. To maintain output, it is essential to promote development in other Scottish areas. The pits to be sunk will be deep and expensive. I am advised that development of the Firth of Forth coalfields containing immense resources of coal is a terrific undertaking. In due course, it will be necessary to transfer large bodies of men from Lanarkshire to the other areas and this is bound to present difficulties, having regard to all the human factors involved.
In Cumberland practically all the landward coal is exhausted and all that remains is the undersea areas. New pits of great depth are necessary. The field is considerably cut up with faults and the risks are much greater than private enterprise can be expected to undertake. In Lancashire, the easiest and most accessible coal has been extracted and a great reconstruction programme is necessary if the remainder is to be got at reasonable cost. The virgin areas that remain are very deep, entailing considerable expenditure for new sinkings. This is a risk which the State alone can afford to take. In Durham the reserves of high-class coking and gas coals, for which this county has been famed, have reached a dangerous level. Nothing but a national co-ordinated policy can determine how the out- put can be raised in this region in future years. The anthracite region in South Wales presents a vast problem. Many of the present workings are uneconomic and should be closed. New deep sinkings are inevitable, and must be undertaken without delay. The country needs anthracite coal in large quantities for internal and export purposes, and this is only possible when the necessary developments are undertaken under a national policy.
Moreover the country is definitely short of first-grade mining engineers and they must be transferred to those districts where they can be of most use to the country as a whole. At present many of the high-cost districts are supported by the more prosperous areas. This is operated from the Coal Charges Fund. A system of keeping alive necessitous pits through the operation of this Fund without adequate control, which is the position at present, cannot be justified. Confronted by this picture, I can only emphasise that what we are facing is the need for a radical reconstruction of the mining industry both on its technical and its human side. This cannot be achieved except on a unified basis under national ownership. It is fashionable in Conservative circles to confuse nationalisation with the controls operating during the two wars, and it is upon this experience that the opponents of nationalisation have consistently put their case. In fact, control is as far removed from nationalisation as is private enterprise itself, and this applies with particular force to the dual control created in the mining industry in the recent war, where control and responsibility were divorced. Neither those responsible for the control, nor those responsible for day to day administration, were free to exercise initiative and enterprise.
But suppose there had been no control. Consider the effect. Prices would have soared. Thousands of miners would have left the industry, seeking more remunerative employment. We might easily have lost the war. Those who dislike control and intervention by the State, who whenever they get into trouble, are on their knees begging for State assistance, are just about the most stupid and intolerant people that this country has to endure. Perhaps they would prefer a country where private profit is the sole criterion, where the State never interferes, where individualism, as it is called, is rampant, where employers can fire a man without notice, find where there are no strikes. I hope they find one.
Before turning to the essential framework of the Bill, it may assist our deliberations if I indicate what the projected legislation does not do. It may interest hon. Members to know that we do not propose to entrust the administration of this great industry to the Civil Service. Nor does it provide for the appointment to the board of amateur directors, or discarded politicians. It will not create a rigid organisation, either nationally or regionally, which would tie the hands of the proposed National Coal Board. Moreover, the administration will not be dependent upon a body of stockholders and, what may prove more interesting, it does not propose confiscation. These objections to nationalisation have been the stock in trade of the Conservative Party for a long time. The main provisions of this Bill, indicating the structure, the provision for flexibility in administration, its essential fairness in the matter of compensation, its direction as regards the welfare of the work people and its safeguards for consumers, are a complete exposure of the pretensions of the Conservative Party, and other critics, of nationalisation.
In the forefront of this Bill is the proposed creation of a central authority to govern this industry. It will be an expert board, of full-time members, chosen because they possess the appropriate qualifications for running an industry of such complexity and magnitude. Their salaries will lie in the commercial, rather than in the Civil Service, range. We must have the best men we can find, and I am now engaged on this task. They will be responsible for working and getting coal, for securing the efficient development of the industry, and for making supplies of coal available in such quantities, and at such prices, consistent always with the public interest.
It will be noted that a statutory obligation is imposed on the Board to secure the advancement of the safety of persons in their employment, and the promotion of their health and welfare. The Board must conform to the standard of a model employer, and interpret this obligation in a fashion that will speedily remove the strained atmosphere that has surrounded the industry. The activities of the Board will not be bolstered up by concealed subsidies; they must pay their way on an average of good and bad years and if, in exceptional circumstances, the national interest requires that coal prices should be artificially reduced it is for the Minister to come to the House and put all the cards on the table. The Minister is empowered by the Bill to give to the Board directions of a general character in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest. This is essential because the Minister is answerable to Parliament and, therefore, to the public, and while not interfering in the everyday administration of the industry, he must satisfy himself that their policy conforms to general Government policy for which Parliament may hold him responsible. The criticism that the powers conferred on the Minister are excessive will not stand scrutiny. No Minister could come before Parliament in these days, and for this particular industry, and propose that a board should be set up to run the industry free of all responsibility to Parliament, or to the Government, who are heavily involved financially. Even a Conservative Government did not venture to do so in the case of the Coal Commission which they established by the Coal Act, 1938, when they nationalised royalties.
It is, of course, impossible to foresee every contingency which may arise in regard to which my general directions would be necessary or desirable; nor would it be possible to define, in this Bill, the circumstances in which such directions should or should not take place. Admittedly a bad Government, a bad Minister or a bad board could under the powers available in the Bill, go far to wreck the whole economic structure of the industry, and, thereby, that of the country as well. But I can see no immediate prospect of a bad Government, nor of a bad Minister, and I propose to ensure that the Board will be a good one. Programmes of reorganisation or development, which will inevitably be framed by the Board, and which will involve a substantial outlay on capital account, will be settled on lines approved by the Minister. Nobody is entitled to complain about this, because it relates only to the framing of major programmes, and not to their detailed execution. The Government must know in advance the magnitude of the plans for capital investment which the Board have in mind because these plans will sooner or later be dovetailed into the Government's general investment policy.
Provision is made for agreement between the Board and the Government on the subjects of training, education and research. To this provision I attach the highest importance because the recruitment of new entrants and their subsequent training and education goes far beyond the normal functions of the Board. It is a public duty which devolves on the Government. In this matter of training it would be our duty to provide facilities which would enable young entrants to train for the highest technical and administrative posts in the industry. Youths with a mechanical bent are attracted, by progressive mechanisation as I have found at the Sheffield mechanisation training centre. The process of training must be accelerated, and this is as much the concern of the Government as it is that of the Board. Furthermore, as the Government will be the only shareholder it is right that they should be able to decide how any surplus derived from the Board's activities is to be disposed of, whether the reserve should be increased, whether prices should be reduced, or capital be repaid. This is a reasonable proposition.
The Government have decided that the coal industry should be taken over on a comprehensive basis so that the Board's activities should not be limited in their scope. We, therefore, propose to endow them with the command of those associated assets which are particularly useful or profitable, to run in conjunction with the collieries. We do not propose, however, to transfer automatically every ancillary undertaking, for if we did the Board, particularly at the beginning of its operations, might be overwhelmed, so we have divided the assets into three categories. First of all there are assets to be automatically transferred, which include the coal, the coal mines, the colliery coke ovens and manufactured fuel plants, the colliery electricity stations, colliery transport and other colliery activities. Then there are those assets to be transferred at the option of the Board or of the owners; these include brickworks, houses, and farms. The owners as well as the Board can require the transference of those assets against the will of the other. If would be unfair to leave the present owners with some small part of their business, and this arrangement is in the interest of the owners as well as of the Board.
Finally, there are the assets to be transferred at the option of the Board or of the owners subject to arbitration in case of objection. This category includes certain assets which may be required by the Board such as a private railway not actually belonging to a colliery concern but used for the working of a colliery, together with miscellaneous possessions of colliery concerns. In regard to these assets, there is an appeal to arbitration against the option exercised by either party. As the right of the Board in being accorded the first choice of the assets which it requires for its operations can hardly be questioned it is difficult to see what fairer system for the transfer of the assets could have been devised.
There is criticism in some quarters that I have cast the net of nationalisation too wide, and in particular that I should be contented with taking over the collieries without even touching the colliery coke ovens. The case for taking over the colliery coke ovens is, in itself, strong, but the substantial reason for doing this, is the fact that in the treatment of coal, and of products of coal, there is, undoubtedly, a great future from which it would be short-sighted to debar State enterprise. If a colliery has good coking coal, it should develop the qualities of that coal to the utmost. New collieries are likely to be sunk where there are large reserves of good coking coal, and it would represent a serious failure on the part of the Board if they failed to ensure that such reserves should be developed with a view to making the best use of the assets under their control. Apart from those reasons, it would be extremely foolish to acquire the colliery undertakings while leaving profitable ancillary assets in the possession of private owners.
Compensation will be settled in three stages and the amounts payable will be determined by an impartial body at each stage. There is also provision for impartial arbitration at the final and most important stage where the individual colliery concern is most directly affected. First of all there is the global sum which is to be determined by the tribunal working under the agreed terms of reference set out in the White Paper. That global sum will be divided up by a Central Valuation Board into district allocations which, in their turn, are divided up among the individual undertakings within each valuation district. The only way to complete the division among the various undertakings is to value them, add up the total values, and scale them all up and down in due proportion so that the total then agrees with the global sum.
The global sum, however, only covers the purely colliery activities which are, broadly speaking, the assets which have been taken into account in connection with the district wage ascertainments. In addition there are the ancillary assets. For these there is no possibility of valuation as a whole to get at a global sum because separate figures upon which a valuation for these assets could be based are not available. So, these are all valued by the District Valuation Boards and, subject to review by referees, the value they put upon them will determine the compensation paid. Payment of compensation would be satisfied by the issue of Government stock except in certain cases. When a company receives its stock in compensation it will either remain in existence as a company or else pay off its creditors and shareholders. When its assets have been transferred to the Board, it will no doubt wish to wind up its operations, and in that case if it pays off its creditors and shareholders it must do so in stock.
What I have said on satisfaction of compensation applies only to companies. Where individuals receive compensation direct, payment will be made in stock but the individual will be free to cash it as and when he likes. The same applies to all the ultimate recipients of compensation such as shareholders paid off by colliery companies. I gather from the financial columns and economic journals that it is not the payment in stock that causes criticism, but payment in stock whose owners cannot, if they are companies, turn it into cash immediately. But what is the real extent of the hardship? It is true that colliery companies are not allowed to destroy the principle of payment in stock by cashing it all as soon as they get it, and paying off their shareholders in cash. Instead, they must pay off in stock. But when shareholders and individual recipients of compensation have received their stock they can cash it if they like. No doubt a substantial section of them will stick to the stock. However, there are other provisions in Clause 22, by which a colliery company may cash the stock, even if it does not go into liquidation. It is only if the company has nothing very definite to do with its stock except put it to reserve, that it is obliged to keep this gilt-edged interest bearing stock as part of its reserve funds.
I also refer to Clause 23, which provides for adjustments as between classes of debenture and other shareholders in colliery companies. The object of this Clause is to secure that holders of debenture and preference shares in colliery companies, whose securities have risen to a value above par, should not be penalised by repayment at par, which is the usual course in the liquidation of a company. Unless this provision is made in the Bill, this might result in serious unfairness to investors who had bought debenture and preference shares at figures above par on a proper assessment of the prosperity of the company, and in all good faith. Small investors might suffer in this way, and this Clause provides them with a safeguard. The Conservative Party cannot complain because I seek to protect the small man—or woman as it may well be.
Reorganisation of the industry, as was foreshadowed by the Reid Report, is the essence of this scheme. New pits must be sunk; machinery of the most modern kind must be installed. The haulage facilities at almost all the pits must be remodelled, and the ventilation and lighting arrangements, as much in the interests of economical working as in the interests of the miners, must be vastly improved. We contemplate a complete modernisation of the industry. Consequently, we propose to make advances up to £150 million for the first five years, for the purpose of capital expenditure, and for the provision of working capital.
Let us now consider the consumer under the Bill, and also the workers employed in the industry. Ultimate protection for the consumer is, fundamentally, the responsibility of the House of Commons and it is not right to shelve that responsibility upon any non-elected body. The responsibility of Parliament is carried out through the Minister, whoever he may be, and while it is reasonable that he should have the assistance of advisory bodies, and any other bodies or officials whom he thinks fit to assist him, this does not re- move his responsibility for ensuring that the National Coal Board shall have the opportunity of carrying on the industry in an effective and business like manner. These responsibilities to the consumer and to the industry have to be reconciled, and the method I have devised is by the appointment of two Consumers' Councils to advise me on matters affecting the sale or supply of coal. I cannot give those Councils power to require the Board to carry out every recommendation. To do that would be to give the Councils power without responsibility. It is for me to decide what action should be taken on the advice given, but it is inconceivable that I should be compelled to enforce either the conclusions of the councils or my own conclusions without full consultation with the National Coal Board.
While, therefore, I have provided for Consumers' Councils, the fact that the Board is charged with the clear responsibility under Clause 1, for
I have not provided in the Bill for statutory consultations with the workers. employed in the industry. Such consultation is certain, and statutory provision is superfluous. It would, indeed, have been extremely difficult to provide for statutory consultation with all the different bodies who represent the workers in the varied and far-reaching activities which would be carried out by the Board. But consultation with the workmen's representatives is inevitable, if the Board is to achieve that degree of co-operation which is essential for its success. The Board must provide for the continuance and stability of pit production committees, and for consultation on all those matters which concern the personnel of the industry, for example, where concentration is necessary, or in the case of transfer and resettlement of mine workers. So long as human nature remains what it is, there will always be the possibility of disputes. But we shall seek the fullest co-operation in order to produce a more amiable spirit so that the existing conciliation machinery will be effective.
One of the principal reasons for nationalising this industry is the prospect that State ownership provides for improving the conditions under which the mine-workers have laboured, and for raising their general status. While for reasons which I have explained there are no statutory obligations under the Bill to establish consultative machinery, the Bill expressly charges the Board with responsibility for
Many reforms concerned with the conditions of the mineworkers have been advocated in the past; some have been applied, but much remains to be done in the matter of a five-day week, longer holidays, and improvements in labour standards, which are reasonable and promote security. I have no hesitation in stating that these can be introduced progressively, when reorganisation has been established. But it would be foolish to pretend that the costs of these reforms can be ignored; they must be related to production. We cannot impose increased charges on coal consumers, but in the measure that costs can be reduced, either through re-organisation or increased output, it is hoped that long awaited reforms in this most arduous of all industries, can be applied.
The Coal Mining Committee of the International Labour Organisation, which recently met in London and prepared a miners' charter, preceded its declaration with these words:
I have made no attempt in this Bill to deal with the distribution of coal, but we do place on the National Coal Board the responsibility for
I have not provided specifically for the establishment of regional organisation in the Bill. The precise form will be determined by the Board, no doubt after consultation with me. I am convinced that excessive centralisation must be avoided. General policy will, of course, be decided by the Board, but administration must be based on the individual pit, groups of pits, and regions yet to be defined. I envisage a form of regional organisation somewhat on the lines of the National Coal Board itself. This would mean that those responsible for supervising the regions must possess qualifications similar to those of the members of the National Coal Board, that is to say, administrative, technical, financial, commercial and a knowledge of the organisation of workers. It is also obvious that success cannot be achieved unless the knowledge possessed by the workers and the technicians is fully utilised at every stage in the pits, the groups and the regions. At all costs we must avoid too much rigidity in the structure. However, not until the National Coal Board members are appointed, and are able to cover the whole field of operations, will it be possible to determine within exact limits all the details of the future organisation.
The Bill has been before the public for over a month and there has been ample opportunity for examination and criticism. Speaking generally, the broad consensus of opinion in favour of nationalisation has been reflected in the difficulty which opponents have evidently experienced in finding any coherent line of criticism. Some criticisms have been cancelled out within the space of a single article. Other criticism is merely puerile and serves only to suggest that the authors are overcome by their prejudices.
I can safely leave the Amendment on the Order Paper to succeeding Government speakers, but I take note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) is its principal sponsor. Before he speaks, may I remind him of a declaration he made some time ago? It was in these pregnant words:
I am not asking the House to subscribe to an accidental policy of dreamy idealism. We know that given the right men, and the right atmosphere, together with public good will and organisation, we can inspire this great national industry, in terms of abundance and true economy. That is our mandate and our intention, and nothing that is contained in the Conservative Amendment will induce us to swerve from this purpose.
4.27 p.m.
I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman the Minister as an ardent controversialist, and one who enjoys the cut and thrust of debate more than most. In the light of that recollection of his previous performances, would he allow me to offer him my congratulations on the comparative restraint with which he has contrived to handle this subject which, unhappily, in the past has been the cause of no little controversy in this House? May I also be allowed to congratulate him on something else—on a precedent, which I hope the Lord President and Leader of the House will see is followed? The right hon. Gentleman told us, and rightly, in the concluding words of his speech that we had had ample time to consider this Measure. I take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the House to give the House equally ample time to consider other equally important Measures.
I shall not begrudge either the right hon. Gentleman or the serried ranks behind him any satisfaction that they can generate on this occasion; all the more so because I think it will not last awfully long. Nor can anyone who has watched the politics of this country for many years past deny that the miners of this country have been pressing for the nationalisation of the industry. I certainly cannot deny it, because it is now nearly a quarter of a century ago, as the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury knows very well, since I stood before the electors in a mining constituency and was soundly beaten for my pains. What I am wondering now, and what I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and others who remember that contest to consider, is whether the nationalisation that the miners want, or think they want, is in fact the nationalisation they are going to get in this Bill.
We have had from the right hon. Gentleman some reference to the past, and he was pretty severe, as he was bound to be, on private ownership. He said that we on this side of the House were always saying that things had gone wrong with the mining industry between the wars and that this was under a form of nationalisation. I do not think we have ever said that. Certainly I have never said that, but what I would say is that this industry more than any other in the land has been subject to political controversy and the victim of Government interference. Hon. Members may put it this way if they prefer, that Government interference has resulted, from their point of view, in better conditions than would otherwise have existed, but the point I am seeking to make is that no other industry in this country has been subject to so much debate, legislation, controversy and political upheaval generally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—I am going to deal with "why" in a moment. Hon. Members opposite think that the period of trouble is past, because the ownership is to be changed. I hope they are right. We shall see.
The Lord President of the Council made a little journey the other day to the other side of the Atlantic, and in the course of it made several speeches; some quite good, which got him into trouble with his own friends, and some not so good. Among the speeches with which I did agree was one in which he said that, in the past, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party had had a responsibility for Measures of nationalisation which had been put through in this country. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and I presume he will not complain if, after our past experience of adapting industry to changed and evolutionary conditions, we examine this Bill for its effect on the industry and make that examination both stern and critical. The right hon. Gentleman said: is not, of course, nationalisation in the sense, for instance, in which a State-administered Post Office is nationalisation, and it is not syndicalism. The old cry which one used to hear of "The mines for the miners" has no place in this Bill.
The miners, as an organised body, never preached syndicalism.
It is a cry which the hon. Gentleman will have heard. I never suggested that he uttered it. I suggested that both of us have heard it, and that it has no place in this Bill. What this Bill proposes to do is to set up a State monopoly for the production of coal, and that is all. Are hon. Members opposite really certain that the bulk of their supporters are enthusiastic for such a monopoly; and are they sure that the evils of monopoly disappear, once it comes under the aegis of the State? Here we have this Bill of 58 Clauses and three Schedules and yet, from the national point of view, the most surprising thing about it is the issues which are not dealt with in it, and were not dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has told us very little about the future organisation and working of the industry under this Bill. It is quite true that in this Bill with its many Clauses there is evidence of much work having been done and much effort devoted to arrangements for the transfer of ownership of the mines to the State. But there is nothing here to show how the industry is to be run when it is thus transferred. Surely that is the essential problem not only for the industry but for the nation?
The right hon. Gentleman made a very brief passing reference to the Reid Report and to the work of the Committee set up by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) when he was holding the office which the right hon. Gentleman now holds. Speaking without any of his expert knowledge, I must say I regarded that Report, and still regard it, as a most remarkable document. I have in mind particularly Chapter 6 and the conclusions of that chapter in which the contrast is drawn between the coal industry of this country and the coal industries of certain other countries. These conclusions are set out under 12 headings with proposals as to what should be done for the betterment of the industry. The Bill does not tell us, and the right hon. Gentleman has not told us, how the proposals of the Reid Committee, which I presume he endorses—the Coalition Government did endorse them—are to be brought any nearer fruition by the transfer of ownership, which is all that this Bill does.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Appendix I of that Report, he will see there the comparison between the coal industry of this country and the coal industries of certain other countries. That comparison—and here I think I must challenge the right hon. Gentleman on his remarks about the conduct of the industry in this country—shows quite clearly that up to the war of 1914–18, the industry in this country compared very favourably with the coal industries in all other countries, except the United States of America, where exceptional circumstances existed. The actual passage is this: is that during the war the improvement per output per manshift was just about equal to our actual production. That is a very remarkable, and for us a very disturbing, figure, and it cannot be got rid of by saying that every fault here has been the fault of private enterprise, because that figure shows exactly what is happening under private enterprise there at the present time.
I think the House ought also to consider some other figures which I have taken from the Reid Report and which I give to the House for the purpose of putting to measure the right hon. Gentleman's problem. In Poland, in the nine years between 1927 and 1936, the output per manshift increased by 54 per cent., as compared with an increase here of 14 per cent. In the Ruhr, as compared with 1925, the increase was 81 per cent., and in Holland 118 per cent. [ Interruption. ] The mines in Holland are not wholly State owned. Some are privately owned, and some are State owned. Some of the export mines are State owned, and some of the other mines are privately owned. The hon. Member can take whichever suit his purpose. I am not trying to argue on the basis of which mines are State owned and which are privately owned; I am trying to show that during that period those competitors of ours went ahead of us, whereas before 1914–1918 we had held our own.
This is an important point. In making a comparison with a country like Holland, it must be borne in mind that the comparison is between a country with relatively modern new mines and a country which has been honeycombed with pits for 300 years. If the output of the Dutch mines were compared with that of similar pits in this country, the production figures would be different.
That is a very fair point, but it does not meet the situation in the Ruhr or in Poland, where the contrast is the same. I do not want to labour the matter; it is from the Reid Committee's Report, and is not my argument. I want only to point out to the House that this is a situation with which the Government must deal if we are to recover our position and that of the industry. The question we have to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the Minister who will reply to this Debate, for the Government, is: How does the Bill, as it has been introduced, ensure that the British coalmining industry will regain its position not only as an essential producer of raw material for our industries, but as a successful competitor in the world market? I want now to examine the proposed organisation of the industry so far as it has been revealed to us today. I apologise for referring so often to the Lord President of the Council, but I intend to quote him in aid for the purposes of my examination. Some years ago he wrote a book—a very good book from his point of view—entitled "Socialisation and Transport", in which he indicated that a board managing a public undertaking must be appointed by and clearly accountable to public authority; but he also insisted that it must be left, in every possible respect, free to conduct its operations on business lines. He wrote: between the Board and the Minister. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer one or two questions about the Board. I had thought he would tell us all about it today, but he told us absolutely nothing about it. I had thought he would say, "Here is my board, with none of those discredited politicians on it." But he did not tell us who the archangels are. He did not give us a name or a hint. Is it possible that they do not want to come on to the Board? I can hardly believe that the Minister would have wanted to move the Second Reading of the Bill without telling us who were the Board.
I am driven reluctantly to the conclusion that he may not have been able to scrape them together before the appointed day. We shall be interested in these illustrious gentlemen when their names are put before us; but before they do come before us, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two things about them? What is to be the security of tenure of the archangels when they come on to the Board? Are they to be removable at the behest of the Minister, or are they to serve for a term of years, and if so, for how many years? There is nothing about that in the Bill. I think we ought to be told, and I have a suspicion that these gentlemen might want to know before they join the Board. I know that discredited politicians would want to know. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept responsibility in this House for the Board's actions, or will he disclaim responsibility, as once or twice we have heard Ministers do in the past, for instance, in respect of the B.B.C.—
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Brendan Bracken).
—a perfectly proper constitutional position in relation to the B.B.C. I want to know what will be the Minister's relation to the Board. Will it be like the B.B.C, or will it be like Mussolini? We must know where the responsibility lies. Will hon. Members be able to table questions to the right hon. Gentleman about the decisions of the Board? There is nothing about that in the Bill. Last Thursday the Minister made a speech in which he suggested that he did not intend—and he rather emphasised it again this afternoon—to put the mining industry in the hands of civil servants. He said this was a fair field for men with business capa- city, and that in the hands of such men, the coalmining industry would be placed. All I can see is that the Board, in practice under the terms of the Bill as it is now framed—and I ask for the contradiction from the right hon. Gentleman in due course if I am wrong—will be unable to initiate any policy at all, without reference to the Minister. This is clear, having regard to the extremely sweeping powers laid down under Clause 3.
Let me take an example, and perhaps whoever is replying, will tell me what the position will be. Suppose the Board, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated might well happen in many parts of the country, decide, for sound technical reasons that a pit must be closed, and that the labour in the pit must be transferred to a more productive pit, say, 20 miles away. Suppose, and it is also not an unnatural thing, that the men concerned object to such a dislocation of their lives. What will the Minister decree? Will he reply that it is the responsibility of the Board and has nothing at all to do with him; will he overrule the Board; or will he leave it, in the perfect Ministerial parlance that the case should be judged on its merits? Which is it to be? We have not the slightest indication in the Bill or in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have a slight suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make the best of both worlds, that he is trying to tell those behind him that he could use wide powers to introduce the Socialist control of industry, while he can reply to critics over here that the Board is an entirely independent enterprise, only subject to general direction.
The truth is that this Bill is a new kind of animal in all nationalisation experience. It is a hybrid animal. The main objection urged to the Foot Report was that it failed to provide any guarantee of technical reorganisation or any safeguard for consumer interests. Can the Government really say that this type of monopoly can be justified on the grounds of the improved technical efficiency that it is going to bring? The Minister was not really convincing about that today. He knows better than I that there can be no comparison here with, say, the water, or the gas services. He knows better than I, that you cannot even compare the coalmining industry with Government factor- ies producing on a war basis. The obvious parallel perhaps is in agriculture, in farms which vary from field to field. How is this Bill going to help the industry to deal with this state of affairs? I must warn the House. What we fear will happen, is what often happens to monopolies. The consumer will be fleeced in the interests of the producer, or the Coal Board will have to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for financial assistance to keep prices down and then the taxpayer will pay.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something more about the £150,000,000. He said he was putting this in for capital equipment in the industry. I thought he was going to tell us something more about it but there was not another word. How did he arrive at that sum? It is a considerable sum even for these days. How has it been calculated? The Government just throw in £150,000,000 and say it is going to be spent in the first five years. How did they arrive at the figure? Has it been related to the vast sums which the Chancellor—as he knows only too well—has to find. Has it been related to what the right hon. Gentleman has to find for national insurance, for re-equipping other industries? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the fact that he has committed himself to stabilising the cost of living? Has he realised that we have to build 5,000,000 houses?
Is this really going to be done without a wages policy at all? I suggest, on the information we have now, that this £150,000,000 has just been thrown into the Bill as a frivolous piece of publicity. [ Interruption. ] All right, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to answer me on some of those points. I suppose the £150,000,000 is to be spent on partly re-equipping the mining industry. But where is the machinery to be obtained? According to my information, the output of the mining machinery industry in this country before the war was about £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 worth a year. What arrangements have been made for so greatly increasing the output of this industry as to enable even a small part of this vast sum to be expended? I suppose the Government have a plan? There must be a plan. How can they just put £150,000,000 in the Bill, and hope for the best? I want to help the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps this machinery is to be got from the United States as part of the loan expenditure. That might be a good plan. But what I am saying is, that we ought to be told.
I turn to another essential aspect of this industry, to which the right hon. Gentleman gave only a passing reference, the question of export. There is no reference to the word "export" anywhere in the Bill. Yet it is true, as everybody knows, that coal remains potentially our greatest export asset. We are making great efforts, and the President of the Board of Trade is doing everything he can, to increase the export of manufactured goods. But supposing we could have a coal export of 50,000,000 tons per annum. What an immense contribution that would be to the restoration of our trade balance. On that, there is no difference between us, but how is this Bill going to facilitate such an export? Here I want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one point, on which we are not quite clear. There is a reference in the First Schedule to taking over wharves, etc. Is this confined to this country? I should like that to be confirmed because for obvious reasons it would not be wise to extend that principle abroad.
Now I come to the main contention the Government bring forward. The Minister said, in view of the past history of this industry and what has been happening, in view of the troubles of the past, and all the disputes, the Bill would be an advantage, because by it we are going to obtain a new psychological approach to these problems, and a new feeling in the industry. Nationalisation has long been proclaimed as the objective of the Socialist Party. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about the new psychological approach by the industry, because if this Bill is to be judged on its results—and they will be regarded as serious to some of us—then, I am bound to tell him that, so far, there has been very little evidence to justify his hopes. The policy of nationalisation was proclaimed six months ago. The Government then got their mandate, but there has been no favourable reaction so far, and no response to the Minister's appeals which have succeeded each other with increasing urgency and with increasing ineffectualness. The output figures con- tinue to go down—more than proportionately to the decline in the labour forces. I hope what the right hon. Gentleman said will prove true, but that, time alone can show.
Now I must say a word about price policy, on which the Bill is disturbingly obscure. I must ask the attention of the House to this point. I thought, on my first reading of the Bill, that it was for the Board to settle its own price policy, because the Board is required to make coal available
Now a word about the Consumers' Councils. The right hon. Gentleman was very proud of his Consumers' Councils. I think he must have had his tongue in his cheek. He is going to appoint those Consumers' Councils, and they are to be entirely responsible to him.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with it?"]—It is horribly reminiscent of the burglar lending the householder his dog and saying, "There you are. Go and make the best of that one." Surely, at the very least, the Consumers' Councils should have the right to publish recommendations which they have made to the Minister, if the recommendations are not accepted. The House of Commons and the country should know what those recommendations have been. It is not provided for in the Bill. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree. I ask him to show me whether it is, in the Bill.
If the right hon. Gentleman is challenging me—
I only want to know.
It is a persistent challenge. The right hon. Gentleman will be answered adequately and faithfully before the end of the Debate. We cannot answer every question straight away. The right hon. Gentleman is asking me why this point is not in the Bill. The answer is that it is impossible in this or in any other Bill to put in every precise detail of organisation.
I did not want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman in an unfair way. I thought he said it was in the Bill.
No.
Then that is all right, and we are all clear. The position remains unsatisfactory, and will be a subject for discussion on the Committee stage on the proposals that we shall have to put forward.
There is another point in connection with prices. It is quite possible for the Government to differentiate prices between various classes of consumer. By favouritism in the speed and quality of delivery the Board could exert an immense influence on all the industries of the country which depend upon coal. The Board could influence profit and could influence location of industry. The Coal Board will itself, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, be the owner of a large number of plants in those coal-using trades. Is the Board to be free to discriminate against privately-owned competitors? I ask this question because there is no Clause in the Bill requiring strict impartiality in price-fixing. Parliament in the past has been careful to include just such a Clause in Statutes dealing with monopolies. The Government must be familiar with that fact. In the Railway Clauses Act, the Docks and Harbours Act, and in any number of other Acts, there has always been such a Clause. There was such a Clause in the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which was introduced by the Labour Government. I want to know where there is any such Clause in the Bill, and whether the Government would consider inserting such a Clause?
I apologise for being so long, but there are many things I must mention on this subject. I come to the question of compensation. It will be more fully dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). I will content myself with making the observation that, when introducing an experiment of this kind, the Government should be careful that the compensation should be fair and should be seen to be fair and in the public interest. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It is just as well to appear to be fair, but I do not want to put the standards of the hon. Member too high. I must say that I do not regard the arbitrary method of calculating the global sum as fair, or the freezing of the compensation money as in the public interest. This country is still the largest holder in the world of property overseas. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me when I say that we should be careful before we lay down precedents for Government purchases of property. The most extraordinary feature of this proposal is that it deals with inalienable—I cannot get that word out. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a scholar of King's, must dislike it as much as I do.
I say "non-transferable."
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is not the first time that Cambridge has helped Oxford. "Non-transferable" is much better. What is the position? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation for this quite unprecedented procedure in our financial practice. If a company—and no doubt he will tell me later if I am wrong, but this is how I understand the position—goes into liquidation, the stock with which it is compensated becomes negotiable in the hands of the individual shareholder. He can do what he likes with it. On the other hand, if the company does not go into liquidation, its compensation becomes un-negotiable. How can that be called equitable or just as between two sets of companies? According to the terms of the Bill the stock is inalienable if the company remains and does not go into liquidation. The direction or the management of such a business cannot use its capital and business experience to launch out into any new enterprise at all. All it can do is to sit still and receive the annual interest. The "Economist" seems to express it correctly. I do not always agree with the "Economist." I think it was at one time the pet paper of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
No.
I hope that he will agree with me that this quotation seems a fair summing up of the position:
"If Mr. Shinwell"—
I apologise for the reference to the right hon. Gentleman by name—
"cannot pay for the mines without upsetting Mr. Dalton's drive for cheaper money, they should decide between them which should wait for the other."
That is a pretty fair statement of the Government's position. In any event I would ask the Minister whether, in respect of those companies, he regards it as a fair idea of a business transaction to give a man a cheque for his property and then to stop it at the bank? So far as I can discover, that is exactly the position in which these companies will be, so long as they exist as companies.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that no company can buy its own shares, that the present law is that no company can buy in cash the shares of its shareholders?
That is not the point I was raising at all. May I try to give an illustration? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I have a picture which is valuable and rare. A gallery comes to me and says, "That picture is of national importance. We want to acquire it for the State." I say, "I am prepared to do that. Will you appoint an arbitrator? I will accept whatever the arbitrator says is a fair valuation for the picture." The arbitrator says, "I think £15,000 is a fair price." Then, after the whole business is concluded, the gallery turns to me and says, "That is all right, but, of course, you cannot cash your cheque, and we cannot tell you what interest you will have on your money." That is exactly the position here. If my illustration is faulty, I should be only too glad to have the error pointed out to me.
Let me try to sum up. For six months the coal industry has been drifting, as the right hon. Gentlemen admit, rudderless. with the tide of declining output. How long is it to be before the vesting date? I believe there are today about 850 separate undertakings. Everybody agrees that number should be reduced. Is it to be hoped that the nine wise men of the Coal Board, in the few weeks between their appointment and the vesting date, can assimilate sufficient knowledge of the industry to take over active direction? Why could not the Government put first things first? Why, before the drive for production is under way, have they introduced this intricate Measure with all its legal and financial complications overburdening the Civil Service, the National Board, and industry itself, for two years with these secondary problems? The duty of the Government was to free them to concentrate on the very material problem of coal production. The case was very well put, not by any wicked Tory but in a production by a Liberal Committee. It is true they have been denounced since, but people are quite good sometimes even when they have been denounced. They said this. It is a quotation I would leave in the minds of the House and of my hon. Friends below the gangway: do not know, it was before Christmas—that after a 40 years' study of nationalisation he had never realised the complexity of compensation. Let me tell him that this is going to be the least of his complexities. If he failed to foresee the minor difficulties of acquiring the ownership of the mines, what assurance is there that he has foreseen the major difficulties of running them?
I forecast that a year or two from now, hon. Members opposite, who so lustily cheered the introduction of this Bill, will be thinking of it as "the Act that nobody loves," and because this Bill will fail in its purpose, the Government must accept full responsibility for that failure, with all the repercussion I fear it will inevitably have upon our national life and our country's future prosperity.
5.15 p.m.
In the early part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, gave a description of the condition in which this vital industry finds itself today. If he erred at all, he erred on the side of under-statement. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), in the last part of his speech, also made a reference to it. Under this Bill the Minister is proposing to deal with that situation. The remedy that has been proposed under this Bill is a complete reorganisation of the industry in order to save it. I listened, as I am sure right hon. and hon. Members of this House listened, to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman leading the Opposition for the first time. It was a speech delivered in his usual style, a little criticism here and quiet good humour, a reference to the Board; a reference to compensation; who was to be on the Board; but not a single word did he utter to show that he had a complete understanding of the situation or any remedy that he could put forward. He reminded me of nothing so much as of a butterfly fluttering from one flower to the other.
I hope we shall hear from right hon. and hon. Members above the Gangway the remedies that they would propose to save this situation. This country has had many advantages which have enabled it to take a premier position in the world. Its advantages are those of its people, their character, their energy, and their enter- prise, which has enabled them to take a leading part in industry, in science, and in development generally. But, one of the main advantages which this country possessed was in its coal deposits, of which the country was extraordinarily rich, and which were conveniently placed near the sea board for transport. It is that very fact which enabled us for nearly 200 years to be the leaders of the world in industrial development. It is that very fact that probably enabled us to be the pioneers with regard to the building of railways, which we built not only in this country but practically in every country of the world. There was ample scope then for the development of the coal industry so that there was no difficulty in dealing with it, but while we had all those advantages and while we had all this coal there was, at the same time, a tremendous tragedy attached to it, a long story of suffering and anxiety which ought to have been avoided.
There are two main matters which have caused difficulties with regard to this industry. One has been due to our own legal system of land ownership, and the other to lack of organisation. The coal deposits are under the earth, and, under our old legal system, the surface of the earth has been divided amongst separate owners, and those separate owners own not only the surface of the land, but the coal deposits underneath. The result is that we have never been able to develop the coal in the most efficient and economic way. Scarcely is there an instance where a shaft has been sunk in the best place in order to get the coal; it had to be sunk in the place where the surface owner would allow it to be sunk, and not only did he hamper the industry in that way, but he extorted from the coal industry, the mineowners, the miners and consumers vast sums of money, which were really blackmail money. If I may give the House a few figures, I should like hon. Members to try to remember the time when the Conservative Party was defending these owners. In the period from 1893 to 1913, to which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington made reference—it was a period of development, when there was plenty of room for expansion—the royalty owners took £342,000,000 when the total capital sunk in the industry was only £132,000,000.
After the war, we had to go on paying the royalty owners and we paid another £100,000,000 and ultimately bought them out with £66,500,000 in gold. I am proud to think that I, at any rate, protested against that at the time. It may be said now that all that is past history, but it is not. We still have to suffer because of the past and shall go on suffering. The right hon. Gentleman and his followers above the Gangway are defending free enterprise. We asked for freedom even for the colliery owners, when they were shackled and hampered by the landowners, who owned the surface, and also the coal underneath. No one who had got into difficulties as soon as expansion ceased—and this is the answer to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington—could get any help. The colliery owners were still shackled by the royalty owners. As long as there was plenty of scope for the sale of the coal, production kept on rising, and, in 1913, 1,110,000 people were employed in the mines, and we reached the peak production of 287,000,000 tons.
Then came the war, and, with it, the loss of a number of markets which had hitherto been open to us, the opening of new mines in countries which had scarcely developed them up to that time, the introduction of oil-burning, instead of coal-burning ships—all of which tended to restrict the market and led to a lot of extra trouble with regard to coal. In order to meet these difficulties, a Commission was appointed—the famous Sankey Commission, presided over at that time by a man who had never taken any part whatsoever in politics and had never belonged to the Conservative Party, Mr. Justice Sankey. A shipowner, a steel manufacturer, an engineer and a judge of the High Court came to the definite conclusion that the system under which we then worked stood condemned and that there was only one solution and that was that there should be national control and ownership. The system which stood condemned in 1918 is the very system we are operating today. One wonders what would have been the position had that Report been implemented by the Government of the day. Not only did they not adopt that Report but followed their refusal to do so by the removal of control. The result of the removal of this control was that we at once started on a backward slide. To lower prices was the only thought the mineowners ever had for increasing output and, in order to lower prices, they again had only one remedy—to lower wages. We went through further difficulties, with wages being continually lowered, until, by 1926, the average wage for the whole of the minefields was no more than 44s. 5d. per man, which meant that there were scores of thousands getting under £2 per week. The cost of living had gone up enormously since 1914 and real wages at that time were far lower than they had been for half a century. All that time no other idea occurred to the mineowners except that of lower wages and lengthened hours.
During my lifetime, I have had a great deal to do with coal undertakings, and I want to pay my tribute to the efficient minor officials and managers actually in charge of the mines. Almost invariably, I found them first-class men, but I wish I could say the same about the major officials on the Boards of the colliery companies. With very few notable exceptions, the bulk of them are lower in mental capacity than C.3. They have no idea of co-operation amongst one another, and, if there was any difficulty, their only cry was for lower wages and increased hours. Then came the Samuel Commission. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington made reference to us Liberals on these benches. There were a unanimous Report and certain conclusions. The main part of that Report suggested that the industry, in the way it had been run up to that moment, had failed, and that there was only one way out of the difficulty and that was compulsory amalgamation. I agree that, for the first period of two years or so, they said there ought to be voluntary amalgamations, because these people had said they preferred them, but the Report added that, if that failed, compulsion could follow. The miners, at that time, adopted that Report, and asked that it should be implemented. The mineowners retorted with their usual reply—"Lower wages first, and then we will talk about the Report."
It was that very fact which led to the general strike. The miners were ultimately beaten, but not in argument. They were beaten by starvation. The only Measure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and his friends introduced into this House—and this ought to be said about them—was a Measure for increased hours for men working underground. It was introduced by them in 1926, and increased the hours to eight per day. So the sad story has gone on, until we come to the 1930 Act. It was not a good Act that was introduced, and I am glad my right hon. Friend opposite agrees with me now. The Government of that day accepted the Amendments that we Liberals had suggested for compulsory amalgamation, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington and his friends opposed them tooth and nail. In 1930, they debated the matter for two days and carried it into the Lobby. All they wanted at that time was to leave the whole thing alone. It is exactly the same story today—"Leave it alone."
I recall the words of my old friend, Mr. David Lloyd George, when speaking to the miners at the beginning of the last war. He said:
The hon. and learned Gentleman will, of course, know that we did make proposals at the General Election which were not acceptable. They still stand.
We have not heard one word of them; we have only had criticism of this and that. The industry, as I have said, is at breaking point. The figures have dropped to 194,000,000 tons. In the peak year we were producing 287,000,000 tons, of which one-third was exported. There was a time when our exports amounted to one-tenth of the world's consumption of coal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington asked what might happen if we could possibly extend our coal production and start exporting. We would all like to see that, but what is the remedy to make that possible?
In the meantime, what of the miners? In 1913 they numbered 1,110,000. In 1924, which was the peak year, there were 1,210,000, but by the beginning of this war that figure had dropped to 800,000. Although there was this great danger, that figure was allowed to drop by the Conservative Government to 740,000, and that was the figure when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister. Shortly afterwards it was allowed to drop again to 690,000, and it is at that figure that it has been allowed to stay ever since. It would have been even less without the Bevin boys and the Essential Work Order. Throughout the coalmining area during the war it was generally said that if the Essential Work Order were removed, at least one-third of the miners would leave, never to come back. Coal can be produced without mine owners, but not without miners.
Why is it the miner has left, or wants to leave, the coalmine? It is because of the whole history of tragedy of private enterprise. It destroys the beauties of the countryside. A hundred years ago the county of Glamorgan was one of the most beautiful in my lovely Wales. The bards sang about the beauties of its valleys. Today, after 50 years, it is a black and desolate waste. There are no amenities for the miner or his children. It is a long history of sheer neglect of the most vital industry of the whole of the country. The other reason is low wages. At the beginning of this war the miner volunteered, as he volunteered in the last war. He has spent his whole life fighting against nature. When he comes home, it is the custom for him to put his money either on the table, or, as it used to be, to throw it into his wife's apron. In the first weeks of the war, he did that only to find that his little daughter who was filling shells in a factory, was bringing home more than he was.
I remember the Debates in the last Parliament when we were anxious about coal production and men were being ordered back into the mines. We pointed out the difficulty of sending a man back to work on a two-foot seam, half naked, wet, and away from God's air to receive less than he was getting a month before in a shell filling factory. No wonder this has become a deep physchological problem. For generations, in the mining areas, a boy had no other idea than that of following his father into the mine. But during the last two generations the advice given to him by father and mother is, "Go anywhere, but do not go down the mine." That is the position. I believe the Minister has brought forward the only solution. Before the Election, my county issued their manifesto in which they pledged themselves. I and my colleagues adhere to that pledge today, and we will go into the Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in support of it. At any rate, it offers a new hope which is badly needed. As far as one can see, it is the only way in which to introduce modern methods into the mines. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington of the neglect of the past? Mines have been worked out and the moment that has happened they have been left to fill with water. The only things that prevented this water swamping other mines were the barriers which the owners were compelled to build. Four thousand million tons of gettable coal have been left, which can never be got again. But the water still remains. It is a danger to future workings. Who will protect them? Is there any private owner who can do it?
During the depression, South Wales lost 400,000 men from the countryside who went to seek work elsewhere. One of the suggestions made at that time was that there should be a national scheme for draining the mines. That could only be done by the Government of the day, and, if it had been done, who would have got the benefit? It would have been the private owner. We believe the logic of events is such as to be driven to the inevitable conclusion that this can only be done on a national basis.
With regard to the scheme itself, it has been asked what is happening and is likely to happen in this new form of nationalisation. Imagine the taunts there would have been if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister had given power to the Ministry for it alone to implement this Bill and carry it out with a staff of civil servants. But because he is going to form a board of technicians with knowledge of commerce and industry, the taunt is that he has not formed it on the lines envisaged and that an argument against the Bill has been taken away.
Who are the technicians likely to be?
The right hon. Gentleman is asking who they are likely to be. I should imagine it is much better not to make the appointments until the Bill has become an Act. The right hon. Gentleman asked what are the powers of the Minister. I am informed—and I hope it is right—that this very Clause is one which was adopted by the Coalition Government in January, 1945, as the right method for the machinery of government. It may be that the Minister will be able to look into that and see if it is right. At any rate, is is sensible. The actual administration will be left to the Board, but, on questions of general national interest, surely it is the Minister who must provide guidance and who will be responsible to this House. One would not have it otherwise. There must be ultimate responsibility to this House, and that responsibility must rest squarely upon the shoulders of the Minister of the day.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Board, as soon as they are formed, will be decentralised. It is the only way to work it. The only effective way is to have your policy laid down from the centre. The moment you centralise, you also decentralise. We are starting on a new period which, undoubtedly, is going to be difficult, but I feel certain that when our industries come face to face with all the difficulties in this country, and still more in facing competition from abroad, they can take a much more optimistic outlook when they realise that every effort is being made to organise the basic industry upon whose prosperity they all depend. I am perfectly sure that, given a fair chance, this Bill will not only work but will be one of the most epoch-making Acts of Parliament in our history.
5.42 p.m.
Bearing in mind that many hon. Members are anxious to speak in this Debate, I consider myself fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must crave the indulgence of the House because I am suffering from hoarseness which is an embarrassment to me on such an occasion as this. The right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition has a nice way with him which tends to make people forget that on many occasions he is not even dealing with the substance of the case under discussion. This afternoon we have had the spectacle of the acting Leader of the Opposition not attempting to deal with the substance of the case presented by the Minister of Fuel and Power. It seems obvious, though, that the political atomic bomb that hit the Tory Party on 5th July last year, and which reduced them to a nebulous state, has still a most disturbing effect upon them, for they seem determined to tread the road that leads to political extinction.
The Amendment on the Order Paper suggests that there has been no immediate action to arrest the decline in the output of coal or to restore the levels reached under free enterprise; that it contains no policy for the recruitment of labour or governing the relation between workers and managers, on the one hand, and the Coal Board and the Minister, on the other. Further, it states that it does not provide a fair method of compensation. The answer to such a suggestion will not be long forthcoming. Lo and behold, once again, we have witnessed the political representatives of big business, so altruistic, high-minded and full of national patriotism, doing everything possible to prevent the Socialist Government going down the slippery slope to political disaster. National ownership and planning—perish the thought; absurd, abstract Socialist theorising is sure to lead the country to disaster and ruin. Why not trust the Tories? After all, private enterprise is a stern, national, basic impulse, supremely self-satisfying, appealing to the ego in all men, rewarding initiative, inventiveness and ability. The industrial workers and many others could give an answer to that in one word. These poor nebulous-minded troglodytes and Rip Van Winkles of the Tory Party, so vicious, concentrated and channelised as their ideology on profits, privilege and power become such that they cannot appreciate the fact that their world is dying; and if the future is to live, then die it must.
Hon. Members opposite have challenged State control of the banks and of civil aviation, and now they challenge the nationalisation of the mines. Why do they challenge public ownership and State control? Let us look at the coal industry and the system which they defend. On coal and cotton the industrial might of this nation has been built up, and, as a well-known trade union leader, now passed on, once said to me, considering the way in which they are being exploited, the people who ought to control it are going the right way to destroy it. I agree with him. For the benefit of hon. Members opposite who may not know, coal lies in layers of different thicknesses in the strata of the earth, placed there in the course of thousands of years by nature's evolutionary work—the personal right of no man, but as a gift for all. Will the Minister of Fuel and Power remember that when he discusses compensation? The history of coalmining is one of the blackest in existence and is a terrible indictment of the system under which we, in this country, have lived. It is saturated with the blood, sweat and toil of the miners, and the drawn and pinched faces of women of past generations are imprinted on the industry. Its history is a chapter of industrial strife, vicious and bloody strikes, lock-outs, regional wage disputes, commissions and reports.
With regard to the coal reserves of this country, a Royal Commission appointed in 1871 estimated the reserves at 146,480 million tons. A second Commission in 1905 said there were probably 140,398 million tons. Again, in 1927, a Commission suggested that there were 178,000 million tons, and Professor H. S. Jevons in 1915 said there were probably 197,000 million tons of coal in this country. A Royal Commission in 1925 said that coal known to exist will last four or five centuries. It is just as well to know that we are not likely to be short of coal for some time—provided, of course, that we can get it.
The miners at the present time are showing that it is not going to be so easy a job, owing to the extreme difficulties found in the industry. With regard to the mining of coal and ownership, in 1913 it was said there were 3,267 separate coal mines in production. I think that was the peak year for production, when 287 million tons of coal were produced. The number of miners in the coal industry at that time was 1,110,884. From 1893 to 1913 production increased at the rate of some 5 million tons per year. In those same 20 years £332,000,000 was paid in profits and royalties, although the capital invested in the industry was only estimated at £130,000,000. Two and a half times the invested capital in profits in 20 years is not bad going. That year, 1893, was the year following the vicious and prolonged strike of 1892. I was born in that year, and my father was a miner. From 1893 to 1914, it is interesting to note that 23,325 miners paid the supreme penalty in extracting coal out of the bowels of the earth.
The end of the 1914–18 war for freedom, liberty and a land fit for heroes to live in, saw the miners again preparing to fight for better conditions, and a further Royal Commission was appointed—which became known later as the famous Sankey Commission—to investigate and report on the coalmining industry. An interim Report, published, I think, in March, 1918, recommended an immediate 2s. per day advance in wages, hours to be reduced from eight to seven, in July, 1919, and to six in July, 1921. It is well known history what did actually take place. Instead of honouring the findings of the Commission, at the request of the coal owners the Government of that time decontrolled the industry, a control which had been established in the war period and had lasted 18 months afterwards. It was taken off—yes, at a time when the industry was facing one of its most dangerous periods. The Government washed their hands of it and gave back control to 1,400 owners and 4,000 royalty owners. There began a period of mismanagement, conflict and strife, with the resulting poverty, misery, depressed areas and depressed communities almost unparalleled. In 1919 a percentage of 14½ per cent. was given to make up for loss of earnings due to the reduction from eight to seven hours. In 1920 an agreement was arrived at nationally for an extra percentage payment to be added to district percentages. During the war flat rate increases had been agreed to by the Government to meet the increased cost of living. Then, in 1919, there was added the Sankey award of 2s.
When the Government decontrolled the mines all those problems had to be faced. The Miners' Federation put forward basic principles upon which the wages should be determined. Those were, the creation of a national wages board with full authority to negotiate and settle wages; secondly, the creation of a new standard rate with uniform principles to be determined nationally; thirdly, the creation of a national pool of surplus in the industry to make possible a real national system of wages settlement. That was vital. But the owners refused the proposals, as did the Government. For three months the miners fought it. In the end they were beaten, not by argument or reason, but by force The result was, the industry relapsed into anarchy. Competition between coalfields and nations resulted in prices tumbling down, and wages also. Wages fell so low that after a few months a special wage arrangement had to be made, known at that time as the subsistence wage. Then for three years trade improved a little. From 1922 to 1925 tonnage increased. In 1925 came a further slump. That was the year we returned to the gold standard and, as is known, the result was the price of coal in other currencies went up by shillings per ton. Trade melted away, and again the owners went in for further wage cuts, the only way they knew. The other unions came behind the miners and the country was faced with a general strike.
Mr. Baldwin, Prime Minister of that time, played for time, and another Commission—the Samuel Commission—was appointed. Again there was an examination of the industry, and in March, 1926, the Commission issued its Report. The Report stressed the point of seeking new markets, new uses for coal, development of by-products, recommended setting up a national fuel and power committee and legislation for the State to acquire the royalties on coal. It rejected nationalisation, claiming there were other ways, but unification and co-ordination was stated to be essential It recommended a single national authority to determine the general principles governing wages. It recommended also some downward revision of wages as inevitable, adding: seven hours' day went; they almost destroyed the Miners' Federation in some areas and crippled it in others. They did as they wanted. They reduced the cost of production by 4s. 5½d. per ton, from 18s. 7½d. to 14s. 2d. Did they increase output? They did not. Output fell from 267 million tons to 237 million tons. A supposed profit of 1s. 2d. per ton was converted to a loss of 11d. per ton and the report of another Commission was dead. What I am assuming is that the Tories want a further 10 years for free enterprise to have another trial.
I have said that I was born in the year of the 1892 strike. My father was a miner, and my four brothers were miners, so I know something of what it is to live in a mining home in a mining village. I have seen my father brought home in a trap—ambulances in those days were very scarce—with a hole in his leg you could put your fist into, to spend weeks at home trying to get fit to go back, while there were five of us to be kept, and he received compensation of about 23s. per week. I had a brother brought home in an ambulance, as black as a nigger, and placed on the bed where he lay for two days without speaking or moving—he had been crushed and injured in the head. I know what it is when the mother cannot make ends meet because the wages coming into the house are so low. No wonder the miners have fought; they are a hard race.
Let me impress this upon the Minister, and upon the Opposition, too: there was a time when the miners not only got coal down the mine, but talked coal at home, in the public houses and the clubs. In the fishing clubs and on the bawling greens, they talked about how to get coal, and bad as the circumstances were, they took a pride in it. What do we find today? Nothing but a cynical contempt with regard to the industry. The year 1926 hurt the miner in such a way that, never again will the present mine owners have a chance to work the mines. They will never be forgiven for what happened after 1926. The fact remains that they had ample opportunity to prove that free enterprise could do the job, when everything was in their favour, when the miners were crushed and their organisation beaten down. But they could not deliver the goods. All they did was to drive the people right down into the abyss, and it will be a very difficult job now to get people to go back into the mining industry. I do not know how the Minister of Fuel and Power will do it, but it must be done; somehow or other he must make an appeal to the miners and the mining community that will cause them to relent and change their convictions.
Many times during the course of the last war have I heard people say, "My son goes into the Armed Forces before he goes down the mine. In no circumstances shall he go down the mine; there has been quite enough with his father." That has been repeated many times, and it is one of the problems which will be difficult to solve. The Minister will have to deal not only with the question of reorganisation, he will have to bring back the faith which the miners had in the industry years ago, and it will not be easy. The mines must be reorganised, they must be mechanised, and if the machinery is not at present available, it must be procured.
The Minister will definitely have to make the mines safer than they are today. I have been down a mine many times, and, frankly, I would not like to get my living there. It is a difficult job, conditions are bad, many times, ventilation is bad, and the workings are hot and dusty. Everything goes against a man having a satisfying job. All these details will have to be faced I feel that it is possible for the Labour Government to make the necessary appeal; I believe that this Nationalisation Bill will do what is essential to rehabilitate the industry and give miners that confidence which will enable them to do again what they have done in the past. I urge the miners to get on with the job, and in the words of the present Lord President of the Council, "Go to it."
6.6 p.m.
I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) on his speech. He was clearly very much in earnest in what he said about the mining industry, and one can understand it, as he has had unhappy associations with it in his own family. We are all struck by his sincerity, and I hope that there will be many occasions in the future when he will be able to speak to us again.
This Debate has opened in a satisfactory manner inasmuch as the Minister and the leaders of my own Party and the Liberal Party have delivered very able and eloquent speeches, fully maintaining the traditions of this House. I do not propose to detain the House for many minutes, but to address myself to one aspect of the case to which attention was drawn by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), namely, the attitude of the miners towards this Bill. The object of the Bill is clear to us all. It is to produce more coal, at a price within the reach of both private and industrial consumers. As previous speakers have said, the future of this country depends very largely upon the successful working of the mining industry, and therefore, if this Bill cannot be shown to offer any real prospects of success in this respect, it need not have been introduced. It may be that the leaders of the Miners' Federation are in favour of this Measure, but I have not heard any very loud remarks in its support from any of them at the present time.
If the right hon. and gallant Member waits a little, he will hear them.
Perhaps I shall in the course of this Debate, but I have not heard or read anything very favourable said about it yet by any of the leaders of the mining industry whom I know personally. They accept it as having attained their object—that is, public ownership instead of private ownership—but they are not really enthusiastic about the Measure itself. Even if they are enthusiastic, are the miners themselves enthusiastic?
Yes, many of them are.
The hon. Member said that many of them are, but I should say that many of them are not.
I could show the right hon. and gallant Member letters which I have received. I have received two letters already from men on the subject of patents, which they brought forward as soon as the question of nationalisation was raised and thought likely to succeed.
Two men have taken out patents already?
Yes.
Those two men, presumably, hope to make money out of their patents.
What they will do will be to get us extra coal.
I do not in the least say that there are not some miners who are willing to accept the proposals of this Bill, but I do not think that many of them thought that nationalisation meant anything of the kind. When I have spoken to miners about nationalisation, and have asked them what they hoped to get by it, they have always replied that they hoped that the mines would belong to the miners. That certainly was the slogan of Mr. Cook when he toured the country, and what he used to preach when he was in my Division. A little book that was published afterwards, "The Miners' Next Step," to which reference is very seldom made by hon. Members opposite, pointed out to the miners the way they could obtain their object.
The miner is a very conservative gentleman. He is as conservative in his industry as he is radical in his politics. Because of the conservativism of the miner this Bill is likely to come to grief. I do not believe the miner will accept all these proposals as laid down by the Minister in his speech. He has shown no inclination to do so as yet, and the response, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in his speech just now, to the Minister's appeal for more coal has not been an increase of coal even though this Bill has been introduced. There are no signs of any enthusiasm for this Bill that I can find, even in my own county of Durham, except of course for the two gentlemen who we are told have applied for patents for inventions. But to return to the conservatism of the miners. They have been brought up with the idea, and quite rightly, I think, in many ways, that the owners in the past did not treat their forefathers well. Admittedly the owners did not always treat their employees well in the past. No one can say they did. Few industrialists in the past treated their employees well. It was not the method in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. No one has ever denied that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I certainly have never denied it. I have always upheld it, and I have always thought the miners had a grievance in the past. But those grievances have been largely removed today and still the old antagonism against the owners goes on. It is much the same as the feeling that prevailed in Ireland about the grievances of the past. The Irish could never forget the grievances of the 17th and 18th centuries, even when they were removed. We had the doubles in Ireland long after the Irish had ceased to have any cause or reason to be discontented.
So it is with the miners today. They are not more hardworked or more oppressed or living in more miserable conditions than many other industrial workers in this country; and certainly their lives are not nearly as hard as are the lives of the merchant seamen. Therefore we have got to find out whether this Bill is really going materially to improve their conditions. Well, I have seen nothing in the Bill that suggests anything of the kind. There are certain vague terms which may mean something or may mean nothing. As far as I can see they are more likely to mean nothing than something. We have to induce the miners to do more work. That is what is required for the good of the nation at the present time. Of course, I agree with what has been said by the leader of the Liberal Party, who emphasised so strongly the need for the reorganisation of the industry. We are all agreed upon that matter. Reorganisation and modernisation of the industry may have the effect of decreasing the work of the miner. Mechanisation, if it can be introduced successfully, will largely do away with manpower; but it will also affect the lives of the miners, because if we are going to reorganise the industry we shall probably have to close down a lot of pits and sink new ones. Such a policy must inevitably change the living conditions of many miners. I know, and the hon. Member opposite who represents a seat in Durham, will confirm me when I say, that the average Durham man or North countryman generally—and I expect it applies to other parts of the country—does not at all like the idea of being transferred with his family somewhere else in order that his industry may be made more efficient.
The human element is entirely disregarded in this Bill, and I cannot under- stand why it should be expected that the miners will be perfectly content to carry out their work in a better spirit simply because they have got rid of the private owners. What is the difference, really, to them? When you come to think of it, what is the difference? Very likely the same men who have been employed in managing them for the last 20 years will be continuing to do so when the Bill is passed. Where else are you going to get all the managers for the pits? Are you going to find them from other activities? Has the Minister of Fuel and Power got a secret supply of these eminently capable and specially trained men? I have not heard of it. I cannot understand what is to be done with all the officials who are now managing the pits if they are to be kept in employment. Are they to be put out of employment? It is perfectly absurd to suggest anything of the kind. What does it really matter to the miners whether they are employed as State servants or as servants of private owners? The only difference I can see is that the managers when they become State officials may have greater authority over them than they had in the past. I believe that many miners in their heart of hearts fear that this may be the case.
Miners are quite ready to obey their leaders—I mean their own leaders—up to a point, but hon. Members who live in mining areas know very well that the power of the accredited leaders is nothing like what it used to be; and even if the accredited leaders are willing to accept this Bill and are willing to work with this new body that the Minister of Fuel and Power hopes to bring into existence to run the mines of this country, it does not, by any means, follow that the men are going to obey them. When Lord Sankey wrote his famous Report he advised that under the plan for nationalisation the right to strike should be limited. The three miners' members on that Commission and three Socialist members wrote a separate report, which is sometimes confused with, or called, the Sankey Report. In this report they advocated the maintenance of the right to strike even if the mines were nationalised. I am perfectly certain that, when public ownership is established, when grievances arise in the mining industry, strikes will come, whether the union officials want them or not. I foresee exactly the same kind of thing going on after this Bill becomes law as is going on at the present time, unless the nature of the miners can be entirely changed; and I do not think any one will be able to do that.
I am opposed, therefore, to this Bill because I do not think it is going to meet the requirements. If I thought it was going to produce more coal or to make the miners more happy, if I thought it was really going to bring peace in the industry, then I should feel it very difficult to vote against it. It is because I am certain it is going to do none of these things that I shall go into the Lobby against it.
6.18 p.m.
It is with considerable trepidation and anxiety that I venture to make my maiden speech. However, my fear is somewhat reduced by the knowledge that the House is kind to the first effort of a new Member. I am happy to participate in this Debate, because I feel myself able to speak with knowledge and understanding about the mining industry. I was hewing in a Durham colliery as recently as June last year, and my experience embraces almost every activity in and around a mine. I have had the distressing and demoralising effect of working for 6s. 6½d. a day, and taking wages into a home which could not produce the minimum of necessities for a decent standard of existence. I recognised years ago that I was enmeshed in a vicious system designed for profit, in which the whole human element was subordinated to production for profit; and for years I have been concerned at the inefficiency of the present owners.
I am freed from two disabilities which usually characterise speeches delivered in this House on mining. In the first place, I know mining by experience, whereas some hon. Members, who treat the House to homilies on mining, have only seen a pit from the safe distance of a railway carriage window. Secondly, I have not been away from the pit so long as to be completely out of touch with the latest inventions for coal production. The mines themselves have, of recent years, been examined, described and diagnosed by committees, commissions and experts to an almost alarming degree, and the paper used in writing reports would probably cover the face of the whole coal field. But despite all these investigations, out- put has not reached the desired level, ineptitude at high directive levels has become more and more pronounced, and the position has so deteriorated that the Government, the trade unions and the owners are reduced to the farcical and humiliating position of having to go down on their knees and beg the miners to produce more coal.
I know that it is easy to over simplify these matters, and my purpose in speaking is not so much to throw brickbats as to contribute some observations which may be of help to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, faced as he is with the colossal task of nationalising an industry which has been losing strength for some years. There has always been, and there is still today, a lamentable and unrealistic attempt to apply the test of output to the industry, and to suggest that a high output means a thriving, happy industry, and a low output denotes adverse conditions. I agree that output is important in an economic sense, but there are other phases of this industry which are of no mean import. The health of the miner should be considered by having better ventilated pits. I know that it would amuse the miners to hear right hon. Gentlemen opposite speaking about the miners not wanting nationalisation. They want more than nationalisation of the mines. They seriously want nationalisation and the taking over of control of the welfare scheme. Much good has been done but much more could be done. I suggest, for example that today we have thousands of miners suffering from silicosis and other diseases which are only made manifest after working for years under foul conditions. If miners were medically examined not more than once every two years, treatment could be administered which would be both quick and effective.
There is unanimity on the point that the coal industry cannot survive unless there is an increase in output. But why is output low today? I surmise that the defender of big business and the colliery official, and probably superior persons whose regard for law and order is contemptuous, will say that it is due to excessive wages, which encourage malingering and absenteeism. They will say that the miners are spoilt, and they will deplore the lack of discipline in the mines. The trade unions will probably denounce those contentions, and declare that the trouble is due to the lack of experienced young men in the mines. It is true that the manpower in the mines today is rather too old to be able to keep pace with reasonable, minimum demands. All these people will probably try to explain the serious disadvantages under which our coalfields suffer from a lack of up-to-date mechanised facilities for coal-getting. It is not my purpose to argue on any of the reasons advanced; but neither singly nor collectively do they afford a key to understanding the bold, bare, staring fact that coal is short and very short.
There is a more competent and reasonable explanation. The blame is attributable to the owners. For years, they have treated the miner abominably. Low wages, long hours, miserable compensation, bad conditions, wretched death benefits, and virtual slavery were the lot of the miner. For years, the miner stood this, until it got to breaking point. Now we have a younger miner who is determined that he is not going to be a beast of burden. The sooner it is realised that the old type of miner, who was often bestialised by these revolting conditions, is as dead as the dodo—thank God—and that his successor is to be regarded as a civilised human being, the better it will be. Fortunately, this Bill indicates that a more humane and intelligent attitude will be brought to bear in the new ownership. But even the National Board will have to consider, at some future date, a five-day working week and two weeks holiday with pay. I feel sure that under this Bill and under other nationalisation schemes miners as well as others can get this. While I welcome the Bill as a great step forward, I feel that the miners and all people concerned in this country must be impressed with the fact that the success of this great experiment depends upon them and them alone. I feel that the people ought to be told that this experiment depends very much on them, and that if this experiment fails, it will prevent progress for many decades. I am convinced that when the miners realise that they are working for their country, and not for capitalist exploiters, the necessary tonnage will not only be reached but vastly exceeded.
As regards compensation, the owners have always followed a policy of absolute rake off, extracting the good and leaving the bad One would think, from the compensation they are expecting, that they had been guardian angels When I was taking home 30s. a week, I had quite another name than angels for them. I thought they wanted horns. I am not concerned about how much compensation they are to get. I think in terms of confiscation, and the less the owners get the better I shall like it. As to the selection of personnel to be entrusted with the various executive and high posts under the new dispensation, I have already made reference to the number of abortive examinations which the mining industry had endured. The mining industry under nationalisation must not be a happy hunting ground for well-paid executives holding unconstructive sinecures. There is no need for a small army of experts. Officialdom must be kept in strict subjection and reduced to an absolute minimum. The Minister himself gave good advice when he spoke earlier at that Box. During the war we have seen the fantastic spectacle of a number of highly salaried officials of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, plus a few legal gentlemen, wasting time and money trying to obtain fines for absenteeism. This was absolute madness and waste. The men selected for these positions must be practical men, with an intimate knowledge of the industry, and no man, whose experience is confined to agriculture or toffee making, should be appointed. There must be no instances of the personnel for the various executive and administrative positions being square pegs in round holes.
I conclude by making reference to one serious aspect which should merit the Government's attention—namely, the scandalous wastage of coal which is taking place today. Tons and tons of coal are lost to the community every day, and this occurs largely on the ground. Coal is a valuable raw material, and its usefulness renders this wastage remarkable. I would advise the Minister to take steps to see that all coal that can be got is not wasted to the extent that it is wasted today. It is my belief that, given good will and understanding, the mining industry may transcend the glory and supremacy of its heyday. It used to be imagined that the miner was the type of person whose intellect seldom rose very high. His status in the nation's economy was on a par with that of the lowest class in the Hindu caste system. He was ignored and despised, and, unfortunately, for too long, he bore this insufferable state of affairs. The Ministry must recognise that the welfare of the miner, and, for that matter the welfare of people in any industry, must be safeguarded. It is no use waiting for an explosion to shed a few tears and then to open a few purse strings. The mining industry must never become a depressed industry, nor must its members be scarred and seared physically and mentally as a result of working under bad conditions. The status of the miner must be raised commensurate with the importance of his calling. If that is done, the days will return when parents, instead of discouraging their children from entering the mine, will regard mining as an honourable career. Taking this aspect of the matter into account, I view the nationalisation of the mines with confidence.
6.35 p.m.
It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) on a well informed and sincere speech. It is a platitude at a termination of a maiden speech to suggest that the Member's contributions will be carefully listened to in the future. I cannot help feeling that as time goes on the hon. Member will have a most useful contribution to make towards the problem with which we are confronted. If my words this evening have any value it is because for 25 years I have been connected with the coal industry, and for 18 of those years I have been in the active management of colliery undertakings. I should like to assure the House that today I will subordinate my personal feelings in this matter, and, in the words used by the Minister of Fuel and Power, will consider it with the impartiality it deserves. I repeat the word "impartiality." We are confronted with a vast problem, and we are only likely to solve it, if we approach it in a spirit of a Council of State.
What is this Bill calculated to achieve? Will it restore the British mining industry to the front rank of the world's mining industries? Will it help us to raise the tonnage which we require both for our industrial purposes and for export with the greatest economy in manpower and money? Will it bring nearer the day when the miners can be ensured of stable employment, good wages and working conditions, without a subsidy from the taxpayer or an increased price to the consumer? Nothing else seems to me to matter at this moment. Whatever obscurities there may be in this Bill—and I shall attempt to deal with some of them subsequently—one thing is abundantly clear: the Government propose to take over, as a single unit, in one stage, and in the quickest possible time, the entire coalmining industry of this country. Whatever merits there may be in State monopoly—and I credit hon. Members opposite with a sincere belief in its virtues—I question the wisdom of so wholesale an experiment. In the field of science we have learned to conduct experiments methodically, first in the laboratory, then on a pilot scale, and, after all the difficulties of development have been surmounted, on a full scale. Other countries, with one exception, who have embarked on this experiment, have adhered to recognised scientific and business practice. That one exception is Russia.
In the course of visiting the various mining countries of the world I have spent some months in Russia, and if I say that the results in Russia are in no way better than the rest of the world, I shall be speaking of things within the recollection of various trade union delegations who have had a similar experience. As comparisons with Russia are apt to be invidious, I propose to leave the matter there. With that one exception, the nationalisation of a coal industry is unknown. Other nations, notably Germany, Holland, France, and Australia, have possessed mines under public control, but never to the exclusion of private enterprise working side by side and in competition with them. I believe that there are some lessons for us in the experience of these countries, and I propose to deal with them quite shortly. Some hon. Members may have seen in "The Times" today some account of what happened in Germany. I might elaborate that account by saying that, having investigated the possibilities of some form of syndicalism, about 1919, a number of pits in Prussia and Westphalia were taken over by the State. They were maintained by the State up to the year 1926. By that time the results were such that, despite their ideological lean- ings, the State handed them back. The year 1926 was the date when the integration of the German mining industry started, and since then that industry has gone forward.
Holland provides another example. Shortly before the last war Holland found herself in the position of requiring additional coal for export purposes. That involved deep sinking and large capital expenditure, and the Dutch Government embarked on the planning and sinking of two large State mines. From 1913 until recently these existed side by side with the remaining mines in Holland, which were under private control. The Dutch Government consider that both methods had their special advantages. More recently, they have decided to bring all pits in Holland under one unified system. I do not know what the result will be, but at least the Dutch Government can be complimented on the way they have developed their own resources, and on the fact that they have made their decision as a result of the experience that they themselves had gained.
Let us take the example of France. There has been a strong clamour in France for some time for the nationalisation of basic industries. The French Government decided that they would experiment with this system of nationalisation on a large scale, but not to the exclusion of all privately-owned mines. In fact, they handed over the management of the Pas de Calais coalfield to a public organisation, under a system which is not dissimilar from the one which is outlined in the Bill we are discussing today. The Pas de Calais coalfield, just prior to the war, was producing about two-thirds of the whole output of the French coal mining industry—108,000 tons per day. At the beginning of 1944, that output had dropped to about 88,000 tons a day, and just prior to being taken over by the Government the tonnage had dropped still further to 64,000 per day. They have had the advantage of four months' experience, and that drop continues. Now, I believe, they are producing at the rate of about 60,000 tons per day. I do not know what conclusions the French Government will draw from that, but the fact remains that the privately owned mines in France had forged ahead, and are now producing some 20 per cent. more than before the war—a remarkable achievement. It may be that the French Government will, in due course, take over the whole of their industries; if so they will have had the advantage of a large scale experiment in how to conduct colliery undertakings.
The most pertinent of all comparisons can be found in a country which enjoys a Labour majority within the British Empire. Australia has, for a number of years, maintained, side by side, publicly and privately owned coalmines. At the beginning of the war an Act was passed vesting complete control over both types of mines in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. If ever there was a perfect case for nationalisation here it was. Here was a Government which had been returned towards the end of the war with a large Labour majority firmly wedded to the principle of the nationalisation of many economic activities, and enjoying many years' experience of publicly owned mines. If ever there was any justification for nationalisation one would have assumed that it was here. But no. The Prime Minister of Australia, at the end of last year, announced that it was the intention of the Government to discontinue the War Production Act and to restore complete control and freedom of management to both the State owned and privately owned mines alike. What is possibly more interesting is that that policy has received the wholehearted support of the Australian Miners' Federation. New Zealand provides another example, on a very small scale, but one that has been so disastrous that the most enthusiastic adherent to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) described the other day as "Marxist pedantry" could hardly gain any satisfaction from its results.
I do not cite these cases as being conclusive. It may well be that we know best how to conduct our own affairs, that we can afford to dispense with the tedious methods of trial and error which have hitherto served mankind. I confess, however, that I should feel happier in resigning myself to this view if our own Government's intervention in the industry had been different. The Minister taunted the Conservative Party by saying that development, initiative and enterprise had been lacking. I would like to draw his attention to the record of the Coal Commission. Seven years ago, the Coal Com- mission was entrusted with the mineral deposits of this country, and their development. What have they accomplished? I am unaware of a single case of their attempting to prove and develop new coalfields or expand production, matters they were specifically charged with doing.
I want to bring a personal experience into this matter. About two years ago I approached the Coal Commission, and suggested that they should join in an exploration of the South-Eastern corner of the Nottingham coalfield. It was necessary to obtain their interest in the matter, because I had been advised by my technicians that the most satisfactory method of exploring that virgin coalfield was by what is known as the triangular boring method. I was able to provide two bore holes at the base of that triangle on the extremity of my "take," but the apex, which was beyond my own lease, and on property belonging to the Commission, necessitated a third bore hole, which would be a final check on that exploration. I asked them if they would join with me in that enterprise. They agreed that the grounds on which I made the suggestion were sound but they said they were not in a position to undertake such a risky venture. I put down those two boreholes and coal has been found in great quantities.
The Coal Commission, it may be claimed, had not yet had time to embark upon such work. They were too involved in all the legal and financial technicalities which had arisen over the acquisition of the mineral properties. I have no criticism to make of the personnel of that Commission. It was presided over by a most eminent civil servant, with a competent staff. He was most sympathetic to my proposition but the Commission were quite incapable of taking any part in it. Why? Because, I am afraid, they were a Government Department hedged about with the doubts and uncertainties which percolate the Civil Service mind. What is going to be the difference between the Coal Board and the Coal Commission? Are they not going to find themselves bogged down by the same sort and variety of difficulty which for seven years has confronted the Coal Commission? In future they are not going to have the advantage of private enterprise to do the work for them.
Let us look at another aspect—Government intervention in the affairs of this industry during the two wars. I know that hon. Members are sick to death of statistics and, therefore, I will limit myself to the bare minimum. The fact remains that in the last war under Government control output dropped by about 60,000,000 tons and in this war since 1941, again under Government control, output has dropped by well over 30,000,000 tons. All sorts of reasons have been advanced for that, but let us for a moment look at what has happened since the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, took over after VE-Day. He cannot be held responsible for what had happened previously but he was foolish enough—and I expect he admits that he was—to announce a target which he claimed he was likely to attain. I was presumptuous enough at the time to suggest to him that it was unwise to do so. In the event, that target has not been obtained. In fact, I think it fair to say that on calculation not only will the 8,000,000 tons not be forthcoming, but we shall be 2,000,000 tons down on the account.
The right hon. Gentleman attributes this mostly to loss of manpower. For a moment or two I propose to go into that matter in some detail. What was the loss of manpower between the end of June and the middle of December? It amounted to 18,000 men, for some part Bevin boys, for the greater part men who, to their great credit, had stood the heat and burden of the day during the war and being due for retirement, left the industry. Allow a little over five tons a man per week, and you have a loss of about 1,900,000 tons, whereas during that period the actual shortfall was 5,350,000 tons. The Minister cannot get away with that.
Today the Minister was asked a question about the production for December. He gave a very long reply. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on that side who asked the question seemed quite satisfied with that reply, which, in fact, did not provide the answer in figures. I have the advantage of being in possession of those figures. In December, I will inform the right hon. Gentleman, 21,900,000 tons of saleable coal were produced compared with the December results for 1941, the last year under private enter- prise, when it was 24,500,000 tons. But this is the interesting thing: there were 7,300 more men employed in the industry last December than there were in December, 1941.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is using figures with great glibness, if I may say so, but he is forgetting to point out a number of facts. I do not want to enter into a long argument with the hon. and gallant Member at this stage: there will be ample opportunity for that on a subsequent occasion, but would he be good enough to take note of the fact that in 1941 we were not dependent upon Bevin boys and that now we have to operate the mines with about 40,000 of them?
It is a complete fallacy to imagine that is the reason. I know we have Bevin boys. I employ rather more than 1,000 of them myself. They have served a very adequate purpose. They have enabled other men to be upgraded in the pits. The contribution of some proportion of the Bevin boys should by now be accepted as being by no means negligible. What we have to face up to is the fact that, since the right hon. Gentleman came into power, neither his exhortations nor the prospect of nationalisation, neither the cancellation of the managerial discipline nor the introduction of trades union production officers, has had the slightest effect. We see production going down the whole time.
Take the history of mechanisation. Some little time ago I remember the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister, saying that we had nothing to learn from America, but I am perfectly certain he does not feel that today. We have a lot to learn from America. Indeed, we were wise enough at one period, about three years ago, to investigate American methods and to see how far they were applicable to our own conditions. The limiting factor in regard to the speed of this experiment was the fact that the full control of the whole of this development was in Government hands. The matter was fully investigated, and I believe I am right in saying that it has been shown to be so practicable that something in the nature of 150 schemes approximating to a very large tonnage—possibly something over 50,000,000 tons—are either in their inception period or have been approved. But, what has been the result? Up to date we are not getting 50,000,000 tons. I doubt if we are getting 2,000,000 tons a year. The speed has been conditioned entirely by the Government. The provision of the necessary equipment was in Government hands and this equipment, in large measure, has not been forthcoming due to lack of enterprise in placing the necessary orders with our own manufacturers.
Those are three examples of what has happened in this country and we have as well the actual example, which I think has been in the newspapers quite recently, of the experience of the Government with regard to Clifton Colliery. I do not want to overstate this matter. Clifton Colliery has been run by the Government for some years now. It was considered at the time, by a great many people in that district, that it would be more desirable that the men employed at Clifton Colliery should be employed at other collieries in the locality where they could get a higher tonnage. Nevertheless, it was decided to go ahead with Clifton Colliery, indeed the manpower there was increased, and a great deal of new equipment was put into that pit. I do not deny that a great deal of good work has undoubtedly been done, but even the most fervent admirer of State monopoly could not claim at this moment that it has yielded a satisfactory result. They are well behind the district, in output per manshift, and they have had the advantage of first-class technical brains. Contrast all this with the results, referred to in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), obtained to-day in the United States of America. I know that it is a fashion to write this down by saying that conditions there are so different from conditions here, that there is no comparison.
Let us give full allowance for all those natural conditions, but despite that we cannot get away from the unalterable fact that, whereas in the year 1897 we were producing 297 tons a year per man employed, and the United States of America were producing something over 500 tons, today we are producing on the level of about 260 tons, and they have gone ahead to 1,400 tons. Their geological conditions have not changed during that time—they are the same as they were. In my submission it is the result of the play of unfettered human initiative on the part of owners and technicians, managers and men upon the problem of coal getting.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why have you not done it?"]—The hon. Gentleman says why have I personally not done it? I have made such attempt as I can during the last two or three years to adapt American methods to our own conditions. Some little time ago I invited my right hon. Friend the Minister of Mines to come down to my part of the coalfield and to see the result of that adaptation. I would have great satisfaction and pleasure in being able to demonstrate to him that the results at the coal face in this country at this moment are abreast of what is being obtained in America. Therefore, it is not the slightest use decrying what is happening over there. What has been achieved over there has been achieved under private enterprise.
When we asked the question, "Why have you not done it here?" the question was not directed personally to the hon. Gentleman who was speaking. It was intended to ask why private enterprise had not succeeded in producing the same thing here that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is advocating with regard to America.
I am not going to suggest for one moment that everything is right with our industry. But I do suggest that the solution which we are considering today is not necessarily the right solution. We are entitled to our views on that matter. If I have brought the personal element into the argument, it is in an attempt to show that I was aware that there was a wide field in which we can show an advance in our methods. It is a field which I hope we shall explore as quickly and as vigorously as we can. I have already gone into the matter at some length because I wanted to demonstrate the weight of evidence against the course the Government proposes. Where initiative has been fostered there you can get results. On the whole, whether we like it or not, the weight of evidence at present is against nationalisation, and, whether we like it or not, is in favour of what has been accomplished in various parts of the world—on the Continent and in America—under private enterprise. It is no good ignoring these unpalatable facts—anybody familiar with the industry will recognise that it arises out of the nature of the job—it does not come as a surprise to anybody conversant with coalmining that this should be so. It is not like working in a factory. It is not a job that lends itself to stereotyped methods—conditions vary even in the same seam. As one hon. Member said this afternoon—I think, in a maiden speech—it is a hard job, it is a dangerous job, a job which is conducted in the dark both as regards sight and the unknown. It is a constant battle against nature. Success in that battle depends upon the determination and initiative of individuals, whether they be administrators, technicians, or face-workers. No attempt must be made to detract in the slightest degree from that individualism. That is the point which I wish to make—that we must foster initiative as much as we can.
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman who interrupted, in that there is a wide field in regard to the organisation and the re-equipment of this industry, which must be undertaken. But let us see the thing in its true light, in a balanced manner. What was the situation in 1938–39? We had, in fact, productive capacity, whether measured by shaft capacity or by face room, vastly in excess of requirements. If we are to play our part in the export world, we have undoubtedly to raise our production at this moment by something approximating 100,000,000 tons. We need to do that under the most modern methods, with the most up-to-date machinery, but until we get to the point where we are producing that tonnage under those modern conditions, there is a great deal to be done meanwhile by sound man management. We cannot just view this thing in its long term context; we have to see it as we are confronted with it today.
I have listened most carefully to the Minister's statement this afternoon, and I heard surprisingly little in regard to the future organisation of the industry. I was anxious to hear a great many more details. The only thing that would seem to me to be completely clear was the determination of the right hon. Gentleman to set up a State monopoly of coal production. He dealt with the future organisation of this industry in a way which added nothing to what has already appeared in the Bill, and what has appeared in the Bill is very flimsy, to say the least of it. So far as any details are concerned, the only positive indications are in regard to the capital expenditure in which we are to be involved in the near future, and about which I would like to say a word. As regards the control of labour, and matters affecting labour, very little was said. During the war the collier was given a dual responsibility to the mine manager and to the National Service Officer. No one can suggest that that system has worked satisfactorily.
Contrast for a moment the wartime history of agriculture as against the experience of this great industry. In many ways it is not a bad analogy. There is, in respect of national difficulties and variety of conditions, a fairly close parallel with this industry. The Government laid down an agricultural policy co-ordinating it with the refinements of the Ministries of Food and of Shipping, and the war agricultural committees saw to it that that policy was carried out in broad outline. Never, fortunately, for our national survival at any stage of their activities did the war agricultural committees step in between the farmer and his men; they never attempted to set themselves up as rival authorities in such a way that the farm labourer was looking to two masters. Dual control has never proved a satisfactory method yet in any industry and, although hedged about with penalties for indiscipline and absenteeism, it did not prove satisfactory in this industry. What did the right hon. Gentleman do the moment he came into power? He substituted for the National Service Officer a form of dual control by the trades unions production officers. Now the last thing the trades unions wanted to do was to attempt to deal with that kind of problem; they did not relish it, they have not enjoyed it, and they have not brought about any particularly good result.
What control is the hon. and gallant Gentleman talking about?
I am talking about the present control, the existing method, the delegation of ultimate authority.
Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be quite specific and let us know what he means? Is he referring to the question of absenteeism, or what other control is he speaking about? I know of no control which has been placed in the hands of the trades unions.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman knows of no control. I think that the present method whereby all disputes and all matters affecting discipline and attendance are referred to trade union production officers presents a form of dual control, which, in my submission, has not proved satisfactory.
I am quite sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, and so that we might be accurate about this, will he take it from me that I have not at any time placed any authority in the hands of any trade union to deal with the men either in a disciplinary manner or in any other form; all that has happened is that the trade unions gave me an assurance that they would try to deal with absenteeism in a voluntary fashion.
In fact that has proved to be a form of dual control. Inevitably, by setting up that system, management and men alike have to pay regard to this additional authority. Recently, the right hon. Gentleman has announced in his public statements that he intends to restore to the technical men undivided managerial responsibility. I am glad he has done so. I wonder, moreover, if he has reflected whether technical brilliance and the quality of leadership necessarily reside in the same individual.
Let me deal for a few moments with a point which was very adequately dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamingon, the specific point in the Bill which deals with a very large expenditure of public moneys in the next five years. We have got into a habit of speaking rather loosely about money on the grand scale. I remember, about three years ago, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) suggesting that an amount of £50,000,000 was required for the reorganisation and re-equipment of the industry. I took up this point in a letter to "The Times" about a fortnight later, when I suggested that a figure of £250,000,000 was nearer the mark. Subsequently, I believe, this amount was referred to in the Report of the Reid Committee. But that £250,000,000 had regard to a long-term plan approximating to about 15 years. The suggestion underlying this £150,000,000 is that, anyhow, some very large part of that sum is to be spent on equipment in the next five years. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that before plans can be co-ordinated in regard to the expenditure of this money, before his own plans in regard to this new arrangement within the coalfields—this new grouping of undertakings, this new regional organisation—can be completed, at least two years will have gone by. Something like £50,000,000 will have to be spent in the next three years; whereas my right hon. Friend has shown that the ability of the manufacturers to supply mining machinery and equipment does not begin to approximate that figure. It used to be two or three millions. If we double that and call it four or five millions, we shall need to increase their output fourfold if that amount is to be spent in buying machinery. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if arrangements have been made with the producers of heavy equipment to expand their production to any thing like that figure.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister was associated with the presentation in 1924, of a Private Member's Bill for the nationalisation of mines. It will be within his recollection. It was such an unusual Bill, it was, if I may say so, so impracticable, it was subjected to such destructive criticism by this House, that it never survived a Second Reading. It was killed stone dead.
It would be; it was a Private Bill.
Now I believe the right hon. Gentleman has learned a great deal—
So have we all.
So have we all, as the right hon. Gentleman says.
Except the coalowners.
And the right hon. Gentleman cannot plead ignorance of the alternatives. The Tory Reform Committee produced a solution for the problem of this industry two years ago. A great many of those recommendations were reaffirmed a year later by the Reid Committee, which had the advantage of a wealth of technical knowledge. I think most people in this industry are generally agreed now that the recommendations of the Reid Report point the way to what can be done and what should be done. I believe that these things can be done without paralysing good managements as well as bad and involving the industry in the endless obscurities of the Government scheme. It is a scheme which is mostly concerned with the question of compensation, which is only of relative importance and not the matter we have to decide today. What we are here trying to decide is the solution of the problems of this great industry. I would call upon the right hon. Gentleman, who has just assured me that he has learned a lot in the last 22 years, to address himself to those practical problems. Leave aside these other matters in the meanwhile, they are of very little importance. What is of importance, and what is at stake, is this great industry on which the welfare of the whole nation depends. I would make that appeal on behalf of the mining community itself. At this crisis in the industry's history, I would remind the House of this passage in the Reid Report:
"When we come, therefore, as we must, to point out the mistakes which were made in these early years of the coal mining industry, let us beware of merely being wise after the event, or of withholding the meed of praise due to a great race of men, employers, mining engineers, workmen and machinery makers alike. For whatever their faults, they were fit to rank with the greatest of Britain's industrial pioneers."
On a point of Order. Is there to be any regulation as to the length of time for an hon. Member's speech?
The Government should give another day.
I am fully aware of the—
Further to that point of Order, is it not a rule of the House that the length of time an hon. Member takes is entirely his own affair?
That is so. The length of time is entirely his own affair and all I suggest is that hon. Members should remember that many others wish to take part.
I will give the hon. Member who interrupted the satisfaction of knowing that I am going to end within one minute. I will end on this note. The breed is still a good one. How good it is under proper leadership, the men of the 50th Division, the Sherwood Foresters and the Green Howards, the Lancashire Fusiliers and the South Wales Borderers, have demonstrated to the world.
7.25 p.m.
I represent a division in which mining plays a considerable part and I know from contact with my people, that they would wish me to welcome the Bill on their behalf and to offer congratulations to the Minister upon it. I think, however, that it should be borne very clearly in mind that while of course hon. Members on both side of the House have a very great personal knowledge of the matter, this is not merely an industry matter. The question of the nationalisation of the coalmining industry is a public question, which affects us all, whether we are in the industry or not.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has just left the House, as I wanted to say a word to him—a word of encouragement, I hope. I very much enjoyed his speech this afternoon. I gather from the Press that the right hon. Gentleman is having some difficulty as regards the leadership of his party, and I thought it might encourage him if I were to assure him that my money is on him. But so that I may not lose my money, I hope he will avoid getting up to speak on such a very weak case as that which he presented this afternoon. A great deal of time was spent in criticising the Minister, because he did not name the Board and did not lay down the detailed conditions on which the Board will work. I have had experience of other boards created under instruments of this House, but I never knew, that before we got the bus, we set out the route on which the bus was to run. I think the right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time putting up a case which was entirely on the wrong lines.
We have heard a great deal about the doctrinaire grounds on which we on this side of the House are supposed to be working. I never thought it a bad thing to have an idea of the basic principles on which one worked, whether as a Christian or a Socialist, and that, I take it, is what is meant by "doctrinaire." But the best example of doing something on purely doctrinaire grounds is to be found in the opposition which is put up from the other side. No issue was so completely debated at the last Election as this issue. I fought the Election very largely on the issue of the nationalisation of the coalmines because the standard bearer of the Tory Party desired to have it that way. In national speeches and on the wireless, the matter was thoroughly debated. Having had the issue so completely debated as this was at the Election and having had a clear result given, we are now faced with an opposition which seems to be purely doctrinaire and in no way directed to the actual issue to which the people want the House to address itself.
I think it is true that the people generally would want the House to debate very closely the details of the Bill. To argue again the whole principle would seem to me to be going back on something that has been decided already. Even the Conservative Party have genuinely admitted that the industry cannot continue on the same lines as it has been up to now. I listened with great care to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who obviously has detailed knowledge of the industry, and who put with sincerity a point of view based on many years' experience in the industry; but even the hon. and gallant Member was forced to admit that the situation of the coal industry under private ownership has become very bad indeed. What alternative to this Bill can hon. Members opposite put before us? There are those who say, "Leave the industry entirely to free private enterprise, with no regulation or control." Surely, those who say that have been answered by the figures which the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde gave the House.
The other alternative, which has been mentioned in many places, is that there should be some kind of private monopoly, a large-scale undertaking subject to a good deal of national control. I rather gathered that something on those lines—a fairly wide measure of Government control over a privately-organised monopoly—was in the mind of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. But that will not wear. There are many objections to it. First of all, it envisages again a system of dual control, by which the workers in the industry owe allegiance, on the one hand, to those who financially own the industry, and on the other hand to those who are trying to control operations in the name of the Government. Such a system will not work. The Reid Report set out the tremendous amount of fresh capital that must come into the industry, and it seems clear from all the evidence that that amount of capital, or anything like it, would not be forthcoming in the ordinary way of financing private industry, in view of the situation of the coalmining industry. It may well be that, in order to get the industry working again, the national interest will require some concentration that would not fit in with private interest, and if there were this dual system, there might be a conflict between the two controlling authorities. This is a great national question which cannot be left to be squabbled over by private interests.
The proposals that one has heard from the Benches opposite fall down on one very important point. Private enterprise—if that is the right term—works, if ever it works, because there are certain incentives present. There are the incentives for profit making, for power, and so on. If one tried to organise the industry in such a way that there was Government regulation and control over private enterprise, that would mean restricting, and probably taking away altogether, the very incentives which alone can make private enterprise work. If such a system ever were an alternative, it seems to me that it must now be rejected on any one, or probably all, of the grounds I have stated. That leaves us only with public ownership of the mines, which has not only been the pet theory of Socialists but in one way or another has been the conclusion arrived at by almost every body which has given the matter consideration from the Sankey Commission onwards.
We now have this Bill to effect the change-over, and I want to say a few words to the Minister about the Bill. I understand quite well that one cannot put into a Bill everything one would wish, and that much must be left to the spirit in which the Minister makes the regulations and gives general directions. I have spent some time talking with mining friends in my division, and when I am in my division I frequently stay with mining friends. The last time I was there I was sitting by the fire with two old stalwarts; one of them, who was gently chiding me and pulling my leg, turned to his friend, and said, "You know, it will be the same thing under another name," That was a matter of gentle leg-pulling, but nevertheless I would point out to the Minister that there is an underlying current of cynicism on this matter, born of 20 odd years of talking about this thing, which must be got rid of. Unless the miners see a really new order in the pits, they will have considerable doubts, and much of the value of what we are now doing will be lost.
This leads me to the next point I want to make. I heard what my right hon. Friend said about consultation with the trade unions and the workers' representatives. I am prepared to leave the matter there, and to say only this, that I believe industrial democracy must be present at every level in the industry. I do not necessarily accept the argument that this industry need be a model for every other industry that we intend at some stage to nationalise. There are things about this industry, from the nature of the job, which makes it different from other industries. I have been down the pit only once, when I saw a 2 ft. 6 in. seam. The miners, being miners, insisted with great respect that I should go through that 2 ft. 6 in. seam. Having seen that seam, I am more than ever convinced that mining is not a job that is on all fours with any other job.
If the miners go down the pits, there is a very good reason for their having more than an adequate say about the conditions in which the job is being done at every level. Therefore, in the pit production committees, in the regional machinery, and in the national machinery, a very wide measure of industrial democracy is essential. I agree with what was said the other night by the Lord President of the Council about not rejecting people who are already engaged in the management of private industries, because those people have the qualifications and the knowledge. I agree. Let us take into our new national industries the people of ability and knowledge who are there, but I say very strongly—as an outsider who has learned things from being among the miners—that we shall cause the greatest disappointment to very many miners if we are not very careful indeed about which people we take into the management of this new industry. Somebody put it to me very well when he said, "Let us have no well-feathered nests for the tyrants of the past." That may be a trifle exaggerated, but it very well expresses what is in the minds of the men.
With regard to compensation, I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), whose ability to make a maiden speech I wish I shared; he said that he had often been tempted to think in terms of confiscation. I will not go that far, but I will say that I am not very happy about the references we hear to a willing buyer and a willing seller. I very much doubt whether there would ever be a willing buyer for the coal industry, as one large concern. It may be that there would be a willing buyer for certain pits, but not for the whole lot, taking the good with the bad—there is too much bad. I hope that we shall not pay—if I may mix a metaphor—a going concern price for a white elephant. Even if it is a white elephant, we must have it, but let us pay a white elephant price for it. As a result of my experience in the past in connection with another board of a similar kind, I hope that references to the need for the industry to be self-supporting will not be carried to the point at which the workers' wages and conditions will be an up-and-down business, with good years and bad years. The workers in this country are entitled to good wages and conditions, and indeed, if the new Director of Recruiting is to be successful, I believe that a good deal will have to be done by weighting the wages and conditions in the industry in order to attract men into it. I hope that his efforts will not be frustrated by reason of the industry having to be self-supporting.
One point I wish to raise is that it seems to me that under Clause 35, the Minister takes power to make regulations about a number of things affecting the working of the industry. I hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to the question of making a regulation under that Clause, which will give the worker who is incapacitated something other than the usual return given to those workers who are incapacitated in other industries. The right hon. Gentleman must also ensure that the National Coal Board immediately eases the strain on the existing personnel in the industry. It is not an easy thing to talk about. I am a tolerant man, and usually very patient, but I nearly get to the pitch of intolerance when I hear hon. Members opposite and various experts talk about the way the miners' output has been falling, and so forth, when they, know very little about the actual circumstances. It does very little good and is largely irrelevant. I am convinced that if we are to get a bigger output per manshift, then the Board must do something to ease the strain under which the miners are working now. They have borne a long period of heavy overwork, and it ill becomes some of us, who would not go down a mine under any conditions at all, to point out how a miner could or could not increase his output.
Secondly, I think the Coal Board must see to it that we organise this industry into efficient productive units, even to the exclusion of the less efficient units. We must see that we get a new generation of colliers. I find a good deal of reluctance among the miners in my constituency to allow their sons to go into the pits. It is going to be a very heavy job to reverse that process of thought. It seems to me that by improving conditions in the industry, and its rewards, we shall be able to do that. Finally, I emphasise that what I have said has been in relation to the Bill as it would appear to the workers in the industry. I have deliberately chosen that method, because I believe something ought to be said from their point of view. As for ourselves and the rest of the country, this Bill will be justified in so far as we get a more efficient and happier industry, and a more regular and efficient flow of coal at economic prices. For this reason I believe very strongly in the claims of this Bill. I believe that on the lines laid down, it will benefit the industry, and every one of the citizens of this great exporting nation.
7.45 p.m.
It falls to my lot to congratulate the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Brown) upon his very interesting maiden speech, and to assure him that even on matters closely connected with the mining industry, the House will always be pleased to hear what he has to say on future occasions. During the Debate today a great many questions have been asked about where the organised mineworkers of this country stand, with regard to this Bill. It must not be forgotten that those who work in the pits represent an important factor in coal production. We heard a good many things this afternoon about the coalminers' attitude. Let me say this quite clearly. They support the Bill wholeheartedly. It is true there is not much in the Bill, in the sense of a definite promise to the mineworkers, and there are one or two things on which at the outset, we would like some definite declaration.
For example, in Clause 1 (4) the policy of the Board is laid down. It includes safeguarding persons in employment and the promotion of their health and welfare. Mining is an industry which is relatively dangerous. Each year there are, roughly, about 170,000 individuals off work through injury or industrial diseases. I am asked to put this point before the Minister of Fuel and Power, seeing that the miners are not satisfied with the basic figure of 45s. a week under the Industrial Injuries Bill. They wish to know whether the Board will have the authority and power to negotiate with the organised mineworkers, through the medium of this proposed supplementary Workmen's Compensation Act. If we could get a favourable answer on that point, we should be a little more pleased. In addition to that, we recognise that when this Bill becomes an Act and begins to operate, there will be the possibility of some miners being displaced. Indeed, pits would be closed in the interests of economy and efficient production, which would leave quite a number of men unemployed. Even during the war we have been paying 12 weeks' full wages to men displaced. For this reason we should want the Minister's assurance that, if ordinary mineworkers are displaced, there will be power in the hands of the Board, to negotiate on how those men are to be treated.
We have heard this afternoon a number of interesting and remarkable speeches. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked a number of questions about the past. He referred to the productive position in this country in days gone by. May I say to the House and to him, that I believe that private ownership itself, by its "get rich quick" policy in the late nineteenth century, coupled with an almost complete disregard of human feelings, has done more to bring this Bill before this House today than anything else. In 1913 we had a production of 287,500,000 tons. We then had wages of six to seven shillings a shift. There were few pits in the country which had ambulance facilities, very few with baths, and no welfare arrangements. Yet in those days there were pits doing exceptionally well. The right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the position of Poland. He should remember that the mining workers of this country were not responsible for the policy of reparations, or for the policy which resulted in the handing over of Upper Silesia to Poland, which became the biggest competitor in the Scandinavian market, and sold coal at 6s. to 7s. a ton cheaper than we could sell it in this country.
I must also remind the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to selling coal cheaply, that when the foreigners started putting goods into this country under the cost of our production, we called it "dumping," but when we were selling coal to other countries, far below the price at which we could produce it in this country, we were told that we were recovering lost markets. Our wages were kept down to the very minimum by the policy that was then being pursued. To show the short-sightedness of the coal-owners of that period let me point out that they were in competition with each other and were cutting each others' throats between the wars. They were almost a suicide club. The consequence has been the conditions of the miners. I remember going through this city looking for financiers to purchase pits to keep them in operation, when the coalowners themselves were saying, "For Heaven's sake let them go out of production. We have too many pits." I saw three collieries sold for scrap for £28,000, although they were pits which could have been made economic. Other pits worked the same coal under good conditions, but there was a complete disregard of that fact.
Discussion about the past will not make much difference. We have now all to be concerned about the future. I think all hon. Members will agree with me that coal has been vital to the prosperity of this country and that it still remains vital. Unless we can increase our output of coal the position of this country as an industrial nation in the course of the next few years will be weakened considerably. I am appalled when I examine our production position, which is 110,000,000 tons a year less than it was in 1913. We have the lowest output for nearly 60 years and the lowest manpower for about 63 years. The Bill can contribute largely to increased production, and I will try to show how and where. I will say something of the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) who has spoken. I think I met him in his own colliery office when the first American mining engineer came here to try to advise on new methods of production. He has always been ready to put progressive ideas into operation. But privately-owned industry has wasted millions of acres of good coal. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power appointed the Reid Committee. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to members of that Committee. When they were appointed I was asked by one or two of its members what the terms of reference were. I said this: "You are charged with answering a question in the national interest. It is: What is the best thing to do with the British mining industry? You are technicians; do not pull your punches. Tell the country, plainly and firmly, what you believe ought to be done. If successive Governments do not accept your advice, that is not your responsibility. You will always be able to tell the country what you thought ought to be done."
The right hon. Gentleman opposite twitted us about the £150,000,000 and asked how it was to be spent. I know from practical experience that there are several interests in mining, apart from the interests of the coalowners. There are the financial interests of the company. Many of the non-working and non-mining directors are concerned only with getting a good dividend. I could recite from my own knowledge the names of companies that paid for years dividends of 10, 15, 20 or 30 per cent. and never put a single penny piece to a reserve fund. They wanted to take it all out in dividends. When the depression came, they were on their hands and knees, asking for help to keep the pits going. What have managers said to me time after time when I have been in their pits? "I know it wants doing but I cannot get the capital. The board are not prepared to give it to me. They say they are not concerned about long-term policy."
The proposed Board will be composed of men chosen for their competence. I have always propagated the view, despite the respect I have for them, that higher civil servants are not fitted to run an industry like mining. They are not able to take decisions. That is not their job. The Board must, therefore, be composed of men competent to do the job. They will be charged on behalf of the nation, with the job of increasing production in the pits. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power that it will not be sufficient to have nine good men at the head of the Board. I imagine that they may direct operations for increasing coal production but after all, coal has to be got in the pit. While no regional organisation is mentioned in the Bill, I believe that it is implied and that we shall be compelled to have not only regional, but area and almost pit organisation, if we are to get the maximum results.
I say sincerely that the mineworkers will insist upon the closest consultation. We cannot nationalise the mining industry and ignore the wealth of experience and knowledge possessed by those who have worked in the industry. I believe that the passage of the Bill will bring about a new spirit in the mining industry. That is one thing which is essential—a new spirit. As hon. Members have heard me say many times, I have always been prepared to contend that there has been more progress made in British mining than we have been prepared to admit. There are pits in this Kingdom as good as any in Europe and there are also pits that are bad. I was very pleased to hear the Minister refer to the fact that there are good pits. I have taken hon. Members of his House to collieries and in some cases frankly one would not believe that one was in a colliery. A magnificent piece of work was started in Sheffield during the war and it is to be extended. Some of the flower of British miners are there, young fellows keen on the industry and willing to be taught the latest about mining machinery. I believe that that new spirit is essential.
I would like to give a word of warning. When comparing other countries with this country in regard to mining output we should remember two essential things. We have a tendency to believe in this country that somebody has always got something better than we have. I have been down pits in more countries than I could tell in a few seconds. The first thing I have always wanted to know was about output. My question was "How do you measure the output in statistics? Is the measurement exactly as we should measure output?" Let me give an example. I was in a country which shall be nameless, and where they boast of an exceptionally big output. I went down the very colliery where the record was being made. When we got outside I said to the manager: "Just cut out that 'record' story. Tell us the truth about the output." He replied, "If we measured our output in the same way as you measure yours, we should show only one ton per manshift, whereas you show about 23 cwts." We have to know first of all whether the measuring is the same. Secondly, when we are trying to compare America with ourselves, let us pay a tribute to our own ability and our own record.
This country has mined coal for centuries. It has pits 1,000 yards deep and 3 miles out. In America the miners go in at the side and leave 40 per cent. of the coal there, in the process. The coal-owners plan to finish a mine in 20 years and go to another. They have less gas and a bigger accident rate. Then compare that with pits 950 yards deep, gaseous, liable to spontaneous combustion, where they hardly dare fire a shot. You cannot talk about taking American machinery into pits like that without danger. I have always said this, and believed it, when there is talk about equipment. There is no machine manufactured in America, Britain or anywhere else, which can be applied to all the seams of coal in this country. What I do believe, and indeed, what we tried to urge a couple of years back is that we should get on with the manufacture of the machinery as soon as we have machines suitable for seams that are similar, but it is a question of discrimination, and what is the best that can be got for the particular seam with which one is dealing. I was in a pit a week ago last Friday when there was a seam 26 inches in thickness. The output was good. I know relatively thin seams, where the output is actually better than in pits where there are thicker seams. We have to face the question of coal production in a realistic manner and take the miners into our confidence. An obligation rests upon us in this post-war world of nationalisation. Make no mistake about that.
Reference has been made to "The mines for the miners." I remember that slogan very well. Our first study of mines nationalisation was when we were in the pit, when we were waiting for tubs, when they kept us there and were not prepared to let us earn anything, and we used to see, with our own eyes, the waste that was going on. Then we used to say what we could do if we had only got the power to plan that seam. In those days we had not the experience we have got today. In our propaganda, perhaps, we spoke in more general terms, but we have become practical minded and realistic. That idea of "The mines for the miners," despite what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) said, was never the official policy of the Miners' Federation. What we always said was that we were going to bring the mines under public ownership, as a national question on which the miners had a strong point of view.
I conclude by saying that having looked at the Amendment on the Paper, for the life of me I cannot understand why spokesmen of the great Conservative Party have put down an Amendment like this, giving as one of their reasons for rejecting this Bill that it contains no provision for recruiting. That from the Conservative Party. In the last quarter of last year wastage was at the rate of 74,000. That is the biggest wastage this country has ever seen in mining over the last half century. If anybody believes that the British mining situation is not a serious one, let him get down and examine the facts. There is a reluctance to go into the pits. Of course there is. We will not get lads to go into the pits merely by preaching to them over the radio. There is a desire on the part of parents to give their children a good education. When I served on the miners' welfare scholarship scheme committee along with others I saw 400 applicants from all over the country for scholarships, from mine-workers with children, most of them with five or six distinctions. We had to boil this list down to about 60, and then we had the job of handing out the scholarships. A tremendous amount of grey matter exists among miners' children and we found that not more than three out of the 60 wanted to see a pit again, although the parents and the grandparents were steeped in the industry.
I have told the House many times that I am myself an example. My father always said I would never work in the pit whilst he did. I never did. I went in at the age of 15½ when he died. What is true of me, is true of most of us. But somebody has to do the work and under this Bill I believe the policy is going to be to eliminate the hard unnecessary labour, and get the coal at the coal face under the best possible means; to have decent roads to get that coal out; to have skip winding under the new development, and to get the coal to the top as soon as possible. Today we have pits where coal can be got, but they cannot get the coal out of the pit. I believe attainment of most of these things is possible under this Bill.
As one who represents a mining constituency which continuously for 56 years has sent a miners' representative to this House, I say my constituents need no converting to nationalisation. Just over 100 years ago now, when good middle-class people like Shaftesbury and others were here, this House passed a Bill to prevent women and young children working in pits. They were trying to get inspectors appointed, and it was in 1874 that the miners of this country for the first time sent two men to this House, Alexander MacDonald and Thomas Burt, not for nationalisation but to ask for simple justice and for protection against accidents. We have moved a long way since then. We have made our job relatively safer. I believe that still more can be done. Though I may have to criticise in Committee the details of some of the Clauses, I believe that this Bill, rightly handled, with the better atmosphere in the mining industry, can make the annual production of this country as time goes on, such as to allow this old country still to remain one of the leading industrial nations of the world.
8.7 p.m.
I have been listening with the greatest attention to what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) has been saying, knowing as I do that his remarks are based on a very wide practical experience. But I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him exactly, because I wish to touch on another aspect of the question. I think the broad issues raised by this Bill have been clarified already to some extent by the speech of the acting Leader of the Opposition. We appreciate the need for reconstruction, but deny that nationalisation, with all its unnecessary complications of the urgent problems that are before the country now, is the only, or the best, solution. We recognise that, with the Government majority, this Bill is bound to get a Second Reading tomorrow, and we realise that our duty now is to submit the utmost constructive criticism that we are able to give.
The particular aspect to which I wish to devote my attention is the impact of the Bill on the consumer, the exporter, and the distributor—the consumer at home and abroad. I feel that I should first declare to the House an interest in the distributive trade, with which I have been connected for a great many years. However, the views which I am about to express are the result of my own experience, the result of many conversations with consumers, great and small, and with other distributors—views tempered and supplemented by those conversations—and they are in no sense the expression of opinion of any board, or body of consumers or distributors. Consumers vary in size from those who buy a few hundredweights a year, to the great industrial firms who consume hundreds of thousands of tons, but their needs, really, are the same. They should have the fuel that they need to suit their particular trade or works, carried to them in good condition where and when they want it, at the lowest reasonable cost, and they should have the right of changing their supplier if they are dissatisfied with the quality or service or price. It should not be an arbitrary right however; I think that the producers also have a right to insist that the boiler or hearth should be reasonably economical.
The consumers to whom I have spoken have told me that their first reaction to this Bill was astonishment at its vagueness. They really cannot tell how they are going to be affected by it. At present, under wartime control, they are in a most unsatisfactory position. The allocation system is, of course, only tolerable during periods of extreme shortage, and one has only to go into any coal order office, and see the unfortunate people there, largely women, trying to get small supplies with which to keep their hearths and fires going, to realise what an oppressive thing it is to the people in general. But consumers have no prospect of immediate amelioration of the situation, for this Bill. of 58 Clauses contains only three in which consumers are mentioned at all, and that is rather disheartening.
The Bill opens with the intention—expressed in Clause 1—with which it has been drafted. Of the three paragraphs in Clause 1 (1), paragraph ( c ) states: c ) is the really essential part of the Bill. The consumer should be the main object of the whole activity. Then, again, I am disappointed that no reference is made in the Bill to possible economies, or to making the best possible use of our coal resources. There is no obligation on the Board to insist on that, but, with reduced output, something of that sort is very necessary. There are people who believe that a 25 per cent. economy could be made, and, if we had 25 per cent. more coal, what a difference it would make.
With regard to prices, are consumers going to be really fairly treated? Is there going to be prejudicial treatment between them, and preferential terms or conditions of supply? I know that it is intended that their interests should be safeguarded by the Consumers' Councils, but I suggest that the Bill provides the smallest real measure of protection, and the Minister said that ultimate protection lay in the House of Commons. Looked at from the practical point of view, these complaints, which will probably relate to some contract on which the coal supplied is not coming up to the right standard of volatile or contains too much ash are not the sort of thing which the House of Commons can discuss, or on which we can be assured that they can give any satisfaction for the consumers. These Councils will be controlled by the Minister, who fixes their term of office, regulates their procedure, and provides them with staff paid from the Ministry. Their conclusions are to be notified to the Ministry, and yet the Minister is the man who is responsible for and actually gives orders to the Board, and they are the people about whom the consumers will be complaining. There is too much of the family party about it. I think that, if the Councils were permitted to publish reports, so that they could not be ignored, there might be a considerably strengthened advantage, or, perhaps better still, there might be an independent tribunal, particularly to deal with matters of price.
It will be remembered that, in the recent Election, the answer of the Party to which I belong to the alleged abuse of cartels, was that there should be some central committee or council to which any consumer, who felt himself prejudiced, could appeal. I suggest that here we have the super-cartel, and with no adequate protection at all. Even the committees of investigation set up under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, gave better protection through the central tribunal, since the chairman had to be an independent person and a man of legal experience, and the members had to be independent of the coal trade and not consumers themselves.
I turn now to the case of the exporter. He is not mentioned in this Bill at all, which seems rather extraordinary. I hope he will be represented on the Consumers' Council as I am sure must be intended. It is vital that his voice should be heard. After all, the home consumer can sometimes be bullied, but the foreign consumer can seldom be coerced. If the Board tries to do that, they will lose customers. What chance is there, that, as a result of this Bill, prices will be reduced? Today, the large consumers are paying 100 per cent. and more above the prices of 1939. Wages form some 71 per cent. of the cost of production. Is there much chance of wages being reduced? Are they not more likely to rise, in spite of the statements made by Mr. Lawther after the Greene Award?
Again, I think that there is danger of the consumer paying twice, once as consumer and again as taxpayer. The second time because he has to share the burden of the financial subsidies. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he hoped or intended to avoid subsidies. I only trust that he will be able to do so, and in every branch of the industry, not excluding open-cast coal.
Under Clause 27 the Board, at the Minister's discretion and with the approval of the Treasury, is to recoup to the Crown expenses incurred in buying the assets of the industry. In the following Clause they have power to establish a fresh reserve fund. The reserves accumulated in the past by the industry are naturally going to be wiped out. Private industry can only pay off capital debts or put money to reserves from profits made from satisfied consumers. State monopoly has far greater powers; the customer has no alternative source of supply, and, in that respect, he does stand in some danger. Prices might be raised in order that these charges or reserves shall be found. If so, it is rather a sad reversal of the assumption that in a nationalised industry any surpluses made should go to the benefit of the consumer. It is true there may be economies in cost other than wages, which will offset the latter. But I believe economies could equally well have been made under the organisation of private enterprise. Under private enterprise the political side comes into it very much less, and, in addition, it has been proved by experience that mine discipline is better.
Now that the war is over the consumer should have as great a freedom to choose his fuel as he had before the war. But that depends very largely on the organisation of the service of distribution. That service is very lightly sketched in the Bill. It is intended to take over the central selling agency. As the distributors are to be represented on the Consumers' Council, it is apparently not the intention to do away with the normal channels. In fact, in his opening speech, the Minister confirmed that. Wholesale and retail distributors, the Co-operatives, and the central selling schemes will still remain. The Minister said that when the Bill becomes an Act he wished to have discussions with the trade on future organisation. I believe the distributors will welcome such discussions. They are proud of their trade, the same as the miners are, but are always ready to learn. There should be the condition, however, that distribution must be looked upon as a separate service. The central selling scheme should not be favoured in price or choice of trade at the expense of the private distributor or the Co-operative. Distribution is really a great industry in itself. It employs over 100,000 persons and entails the use of a great deal of fixed capital, ships, railway wagons, screening plant, barges, motor lorries and many other things. It also entails the use of much liquid capital, because it has to finance the collection of all the money paid by the ultimate consumer, and much of that comes in in very small sums. Above all, it supplies the knowledge, the experience, the initiative and the foresight required to match demand and production, with the least possible friction and the highest efficiency. I believe distributors would welcome the laying down by the National Coal Board of conditions of registration, general conditions of sale and standards of service, and the Board's co-operation with the wholesale trade with the object of achieving maximum efficiency in distribution. Perhaps there could be a schedule of fixed margins for various classes of coal. It is hoped that under reorganisation the distributor may have more adequate opportunity for performing his services satisfactorily.
Finally, I would turn to the case of the exporter. In the 10 years before the war, the export trade brought in nearly £35 million a year to this country. It is, perhaps, the easiest of all export trades to carry on. It is a great help to shipping, shipbuilding and other ancillary trades. As I said before, I am surprised that there is no mention of it in this Bill. It must be presumed that if they wished to do so the Board may become exporters, although it is unlikely they would wish to. Exporting is a highly speculative business. There are few trades in which the personal touch and mutual confidence in one another are more necessary. It is not an easy thing for a Government Department to take a hand in. Also, there might be very considerable international difficulties if the Government started taking over bunking stations in Tangier or the Suez Canal, or began exporting foreign coal from one country to another, as many exporters did during the war, in order to reserve the markets for when British coal can be exported again. Under this Bill there does not appear to be very much hope for the exporter, or very much to encourage him to hope he will get the things he wants at low prices. It rather looks as though Bretton Woods may prevent this trade being subsidised by the Government, though I do not believe it has every really been directly subsidised by the State in this country. We are not going to ask for help in supporting this individual trade; we can stand on our own feet provided we are given the opportunity.
But I think there should be close liaison between the Coal Board and those who administer Germany and the German coal mines in the British occupied zone. Possibly some of our export markets might be kept supplied with German coal for a time until British coal can take its place. The same thing might also be done in Indo-China where there is a very valuable supply of anthracite.
To sum up, let me repeat that the consumer and the distributor at home and abroad are very much concerned with the lack of consideration they seem to receive in this Bill. The Bill seems to have been hurriedly framed to meet a long-standing electoral promise. It looks as if the draftsmen, as they worked, discovered the immense complexities of the problems contingent on transferring an industry of this size from one ownership to another, that they attempted to meet them—or perhaps it would be better to say they attempted to evade them—by a masterly inactivity that gave immense powers to the Minister but at the same time left consumers at home and abroad in very grave uncertainty as to their position. I hope before the end of this Debate the Minister may to some extent relieve this uncertainty, and that on the Committee stage he will accept substantial amendments which will make this Bill more of a framework within which the industry may develop to the benefit of the consumer, and less of an instrument which may allow the consumer to be exploited to the benefit only of those engaged in the industry, the Ministry and possibly the Treasury as well
8.33 p.m.
In addressing the House for the first time, my fear and trepidation are somewhat alleviated by the indulgent manner in which the House always receives a maiden speech.
In discussing this very important Measure, I am particularly interested, not because I represent a mining constituency—I do not—but because I was born and brought up in a mining area, and I know something of the hazardous conditions and the terrible wage slavery which the miner has had to endure for centuries. I think it is interesting to get to the background of the campaign against this Bill for the nationalisation of the coal mines. That plan has been revealed by Mr. Robert Foot in a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power. There, it is revealed that the mineowners are refraining from opposing the principle of nationalisation; in other words, they are prepared to sell their out-of-date and inefficient plant to the community. It is also interesting to note that they are fighting strenuously for immediate payment of a high price and in cash. They oppose payment in Government stock; and they oppose the method of assessing the amount to be paid and also the method of regulating payments. Thirdly, they vigorously object to the nationalisation of the collieries' ancillary machinery because of their ever increasing importance. I suggest that these are considerations to which the House ought to address itself in this Debate.
For over 50 years the nationalisation of the coalmines has been the basic demand of all sections of the Labour Party. There is no longer any need to argue Labour's case. It satisfied the Royal Commission under the Presidency of Mr. Justice Sankey in 1919. It cannot now be resisted even by the coalowners. How could they resist it after the Report of the Reid Committee? The composition of that Committee was entirely of mining engineers and mining directors; there were no discarded politicians. There the private ownership of the coalmines was indicted in a manner in which, I submit, no industry has been indicted before. The coalowners know they are unable to make their pits efficient and safe and they are unable to attract labour. They are unable to supply coal abundantly and cheaply, to ensure warm hearths, to ensure the revival of other industries, to develop their export trade and to give a decent standard of living to the miners. These people who have enriched themselves by exploiting the miners and the consumers have reduced the collieries to such a lamentable state of inefficiency that they can no longer expect future profit.
The mineowners are not admitting the case for nationalisation because at long last they have seen the light and logic of the arguments. They accept it because they know that the alternative is a national industrial calamity They are selling out while their goods are marketable and before ruin overtakes them. The motive of the coalowners needs to be well understood in order to estimate the real sense in which they are willing sellers. They estimate a high cost and a high cash price. They are determined to retain the mining and ancillary industries. No words used on the Labour side can be sufficiently harsh. On a dispassionate examination of the facts and figures, I marvel at the generosity of His Majesty's Government with regard to their compensation. In fact, I am inclined to think the mineowners ought to be penalised for the inefficient manner in which they have administered this national asset, this real wealth of Britain.
The facts in favour of the liquidation of capitalism in the coalmining industry are not difficult to find. Here are a few. Despite the desperate need for coal, production has continued to diminish. The wage earners in the industry have dropped from 717,000 in 1944 to 693,000 in November, 1945, although in the last month there was a certain improvement in the situation in so far as there was an increase of 300. The retail price of coal is 50 per cent. above that of prewar. Mining accidents kill two men every day, and in 1943, 713 men lost their lives in the industry. One miner in four draws compensation every year for either disease or injury, and more than 100,000 workers in the pits today are over 55 years of age. Death, injury and sickness have taken 44,000 men from the pits in 1944, and only 10,000 men have been recruited in the same period. So utterly evil are the conditions which exist in the mines that the Government had to resort to State conscription. We have had many illustrations of how difficult it is to enforce.
I think one of the greatest indictments of the conditions in the industry is that we find the young men of this country prepared to go as air gunners or in submarines and take all the risks of battle, but they are not prepared to face the hazards and dangers of the conditions which exist in the mines of this country. Government intervention has been necessary to guarantee the wages of the miners. It has been necessary to guarantee profits for the owners. It has also been necessary with regard to conditions of welfare and safety. In the Reid Report we see staggering disclosures of the technical backwardness of the pits. Twenty per cent. of the coal is hewn in Britain by hand picks. Scarcely any mechanical loading takes place at the coal face; coal is shovelled on to the conveyer. In other countries cutting and loading is done by one single machine. Up to the present there has been no machine designed for operation in British coalfields. One man is employed on haulage for every five tons per shift output. Contrast that with the conditions that pertain abroad. It might help to explain the differences in man output, as between British miners and Continental miners, before 1939. On the Continent you have locomotive haulage with carrying capacity of between two to ten tons, whereas in British pits they are using tubs of a capacity of one ton, in some cases as low as three hundredweight. In point of fact the conditions in the pits date back to the days when the complete handling of the coal was by manpower.
To put those matters right, the Reid Report says there must be a tremendous plan of reconstruction; there must be the sinking of new mines, new drifts must be sunk, and that task cannot be carried through by the industry today. Why? Firstly, because of the dearth of mining civil engineers. The industry is no more attractive to the technician than to the ordinary manual worker. Secondly, the industry cannot raise sufficient capital. In point of fact the estimated capital for the bringing up to date of the British coal mines is in the nature of £300,000,000. It is interesting to compare that figure with the estimated value of the British coal mines as computed by Lord Justice Sankey in 1919 when he stipulated a sum in the region of £135,000,000. If that sum of £300,000,000 can be raised it would place a stupendous burden on the industry. Interest at 4 per cent. would call for £12,000,000 annually, which is approximately the total yearly profit at the pit head. Even an interest of 2 per cent.—which I submit is unthinkable as a commercial proposition—would further cripple the industry.
Capitalism cannot find the money and the necessary capital for this development, so the State is being offered this out-of-date and inefficient plant, in order to turn the wreck into a going concern. The Government have to do it, and are bound to do it because the industry is of such vital importance to the industrial wellbeing of the community. There must be no giving away to the owners with regard to extra compensation for their ancillary undertakings. The ancillary undertakings must be regarded as an integral part of the coalmining industry. It is obvious the coal owners would like to maintain the ancillary undertakings, the coke ovens and all the products which are derived from the coking of coal—plastics, dyes and many chemicals and high explosives. They are prepared to retain those. I submit it is necessary and vital for the Government to retain that profitable side of the industry, in the same way as it is necessary for them to revitalise the coalmines of the country.
Finally, I make one or two criticisms of the Measure. I would like to see included in the Bill Clauses dealing with wages and conditions, and also a scheme of negotiating machinery. This has been done in previous Measures. I refer to the London Passenger Transport Act of 1932–33. I hope that between now and the Committee stage of the Bill the Minister will ses his way to including Clauses to safeguard the workers in the industry. He referred this afternoon to the many trade unions which are in the industry, but I venture to suggest that there are no more trade unions in the mining industry than are to be found among railway shopmen. It was found necessary to safeguard their rights with a form of negotiating machinery in that Measure. I hope the Minister will reconsider that. I think the Measure is a definite step forward, and will lead not only to improving the conditions of the workers in the industry, but to revitalising this industry which is vital to the welfare of the community.
8.47 p.m.
My first pleasant task is to have to congratulate the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) on his maiden speech, spoken with great detailed know- ledge and with great confidence. He can congratulate himself on having acquitted himself well, and I am sure we shall benefit from his further contributions in the course of our Debates.
I think every Party in the House agrees that, for one reason or another, the time has come when extensive reorganisation of the coal mining industry is required. I think we are all further agreed about this, that the Reid Report points the way to that reorganisation. We do not, however, agree about the method to be pursued in achieving that reorganisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made it quite clear in the earlier stages today what his view was. The Leader of the Opposition put on record the policy of the Conservative Party, in a somewhat detailed statement with regard to coalmining. My purpose this evening is a more limited purpose than examining the background. We were challenged by the Minister in his opening statement to subject this Bill to an impartial and objective analysis. I propose to take up that challenge. So far as being objective is concerned, I think I can promise that. It is difficult for anyone to promise to be impartial on any political matter, but I can promise this, that I have made a careful study of the provisions of this Bill and what I shall say, will be my own view about them, formed after that study.
What one has to do is to see whether the provisions of this Bill are likely to do justice, and whether they are likely to forward the public interest. I think, further, that one has to look at the Bill from the angle of those classes of persons who are most directly concerned.
The miners.
We are all concerned indirectly, but I would single out four classes of persons as being chiefly concerned directly. I put first the consumers, because the whole future prosperity of this country depends on there being an adequate supply of coal for the maintenance of the industries by which we must live. I put second those employed in the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Certainly. But I would simply say in passing that there are others employed in the industry besides the miners. I put third those whose capital is in the industry, and I am told that there are a matter of 150,000 shareholders, large and small. I put fourth, not as being least in importance, the taxpayers—all of us who pay taxes.
Obviously, in the time at my disposal I cannot examine the Bill from all those four aspects, and I do not propose to pursue the examination of the Bill from the aspect of its effect on the miners. I leave that to my hon. Friends who have spoken and who may hereafter catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I do not propose to say a great deal about the consumer, because my hon. Friend who has just spoken has expressed a case fairly fully. I shall deal chiefly with the finance and compensation Clauses in the Bill, and with those Clauses which relate to the positions of the Board, the Minister, and Parliament.
I take first the subject of compensation, which takes up a very large part of this Bill. I think it right to express at the beginning the principle which we hold on this subject. I would put it this way: if a man's property is taken from him, he should not receive less than the market value of what he has lost. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, does he or does he not accept that test? I ask him further, do his followers accept it, because, listening to some able maiden speeches here this afternoon, I noticed that at least two hon. Members who are new to this House, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) and the hon. Member for North Wembley, plainly would not be prepared to accept that test as a proper test for compensation. I have noticed in the past that the Socialist Party has spoken with two voices on this question.
The Tory Party has spoken with six voices.
Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, are we to examine this Bill from the angle of the principle which I have just stated, or is there some other principle which he would put in its place? I hope we shall have an answer.
I pass on to examine the proposals. The Bill begins by providing a global sum, and we think that that is a bad method, which is wrong in nearly every case. I am quite sure that somebody will want to know why it is wrong here when it was adopted in the case of the royalties. I think it right that I should explain what, in my view, is the essential difference between the two cases. The royalties were easy to calculate. No elaborate investigation was required, and none was made. We thought that the global sum arrived at by a very easy process of calculation would be fair, and it was fair. On an average it gave, looking at the Coal Commission's Report, a sum of 20s. 7d. for every £1 of proved valuation—that is to say, it was within three per cent of being completely accurate. Therefore I think one is entitled to say that in that case the method worked fairly, although it may be objectionable in principle. Where we went wrong was that we went on to allocate the global sum among regions, and that produced great inequalities and injustices, because it resulted in some regions getting only 14s. 7d. in the £ while other regions got 24s. 10d. Nobody has yet been able to discover the reason for the allocation going wrong. I should have thought that, when the Minister knows that this subdivision of the global sum into regions went so far astray in the simple case of royalties, he would have hesitated very much to apply it to the much more difficult case of the industry as a whole. Whatever one says about the global sum, its division into regions before its final allocation to companies does seem to be a very doubtful expedient, to put it no higher.
The mineowners have accepted it.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made that observation, because I want to ask him a question about it. I find great difficulty, I am bound to say, in understanding the pronouncements of the Mining Association. [ Laughter. ] I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should laugh; we do not represent the Mining Association. [ Interruption. ] I wish to make it perfectly plain that we do not in any way represent the Mining Association. We have nothing whatever to do with it. I want to know from the. right hon. Gentleman, because he appears to know something about it, has the Mining Association agreed to accept the global method—
indicated assent.
—and the sub-division method, and had the Mining Association authority from the various companies to give away the shareholders' money?
They said they had.
It is not uncommon for those who are negotiating to find out just what the authority of the other negotiating party is, and if I am told—and I must accept what the Government say—that this was an agreement freely entered into, I should never ask that it should be overturned or broken, because that would not be consistent with what I believe to be the right way of conducting these matters. Therefore, if we can be assured—which we have not been up to date—that there was authority to make an agreement and that an agreement exists, one is in a different position in the light of that information. But whatever be the state of affairs there, that does not alter our view that this method is a bad method in the present instance, and will be a bad method in any future instance. We shall strenuously oppose any attempt to impose the global method on any industry which does not accept it. I am waiting to be assured on that by the right hon. Gentleman when he replies. No doubt he will tell us in full detail what the position is, because all we have to go on is what is published in the Press, which I am bound to say I find very difficult to understand. The White Paper has nothing to do with the two questions I have asked.
We think that the global method is a bad method in this case. Reaching the global figure depends upon the maintainable revenue, and in reaching the maintainable revenue you deduct the losses of the losing concerns from the profits of the profit-making concerns, and, therefore, if you deduct the losses from the profits before you reach the global sum the global sum cannot be paying enough to go round among those concerns.
It is still a global sum.
I agree, but it is not a big enough one. I am assuming this because if I am shown that the global sum is consistent with, the principle I stated earlier, my argument is a bad one; but if you accept the principle I stated it is not possible to justify the global sum, except on one view—and I do not know whether this is the view of the Government. It the Government says that it is just that a man should get less for his property because his neighbour is making losses, then I can understand it. It seems to me that you can only justify this method by saying that a man who is asking for compensation for his own undertaking should have to suffer a deduction from his compensation because his neighbour has been making losses. I could understand the adoption of the global method if it saved investigation, but it does not. It adds an extra stage—an extra two stages. You have first of all to find your global sum; then you have to allocate; then you have to value the unit, just as you would if you had no global sum at all; and then you have the extra stage of dividing the value of the unit between the coal industrial value and subsidiary purposes value. You pay the value for subsidiary purposes in full, but you only pay a dividend upon the coal industry value.
Why is this roundabout method being adopted? What is the purpose? The only purpose I can see is that the Government hope by its adoption to be able to reach a smaller figure of compensation than they would reach if an ordinary straight forward method were adopted. On my first reading of Clause 23 it seemed to me to back up my view. I was a little astonished today at the suggestion of the Minister, if I understood him aright, that the only purpose of Clause 23 was to enable creditors to get more than the face value of their security, if that should happen to be just in a particular case. I have thought, and I still think, that Clause 23 can be used in very different circumstances, and I shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will deal with this matter, because I know it is causing considerable concern in certain quarters. Let me put it this way. A number of people who have nothing to do with the coalmining industry at all lend their money on good security to solvent coal companies. Then the Government pay compensation to those coal companies; and Clause 23 appears to me to mean that if that compensation is inadequate, and paying the creditors in full would leave the shareholders with something so inadequate that even the Government would be ashamed of it, then the creditors are to be asked to contribute towards giving the shareholders a fair sum. That seems to me, and I think seems to others, to be possible under Clause 23. If that is not the purpose of Clause 23, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say so, and will agree to amend it, so as to make that impossible.
I pass to another matter. I understand that the vesting date may quite likely occur somewhat later in this year, and it is fairly obvious that compensation will not be finally determined and paid for at least four or five years. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us any assurance to the contrary, we should be very glad, but looking at the history of similar matters, I am bound to say that an estimate of four or five years seems to me to be very likely. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what his view is of the time he is going to take to settle up this matter. I cannot understand why the Government have adopted a different principle for the first two years, while the valuation is going on, from the principle which they adopt for the remainder of the period. I should have thought that if the principle was just for the first two years, it was equally just for the rest of the period. The principle adopted for the first two years is to give, as interim income, one half of the profits estimated on a certain basis. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why one half? It is possible that this may do justice in some cases, but it is pretty obvious that it will do great injustice in other cases. This does not satisfy us at all, and we should be glad to have the information as to what is the basis on which the Government have estimated the half profit. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, because it does seem to be something which requires justification very much, but perhaps he can justify it. I doubt, however, whether he can justify the remainder of the provisions under which no income at all is paid after a lapse of two years, except that there is a small addition to your ultimate stock for compensation which, when you get it, you cannot realise. That does, indeed, seem to be a strange provision, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how that has been arrived at, because it seems to us wholly unjustifiable.
Now I come to the most objectionable Clause of all in the public interest. That is Clause 22. Under Clause 22, as I understand it, the Treasury take power not only to pay compensation in stock—there may be a case for that, but it seems an unnecessary thing to do if it is negotiable stock—but to pay in stock which is inalienable except in certain events. There is a provision in the Clause that the Treasury may release this stock in certain events, but no one would have invented this elaborate and troublesome system unless the Treasury intended that the freezing power should be used excessively. No one is going to trouble to put into operation a thing like that to deal with only an odd case. We must take it, therefore, that this freezing power is going to be used on an extensive scale. Why? To begin with, it is not fair to the owner. If an owner is to be compensated on a capital basis, surely it is right that he should be able to use his capital to reinvest it in other productive enterprises. But the worst feature is this. In all parts of the House we are agreed that the future requires a policy of full employment, and I should have thought we would have agreed that that means that every one who has capital and also industrial experience and initiative should be encouraged to use it, not discouraged as here.
No.
I certainly say "discouraged as here." I said a moment ago without apparent dissent from the right hon. Gentleman, that the Treasury would not introduce this provision unless they intended to use it on an extended scale, and the right hon. Gentleman nodded. You cannot imagine any company, which gets extensive compensation, not wanting to reinvest it in some productive enterprise. Of course, it will and, therefore, I am right in saying, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think, that the ultimate result of this is going to be to hamper people who have enterprise and initiative, using their capital in the country's interest. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is encouraging liquidation. Many of these companies would only be too glad to carry on in some other productive enterprise if they got the chance, but if they are going to get their money easily by liquidation and find difficulty in getting it out if they invest it, the Government are giving indirect encouragement to liquidation. Then the money will be split up into small amounts, which can be realised in cash, and, of course, you are going to get that money going into the markets for consumption, on an extensive scale which is the very place you do not want to have it. The companies will not spend their money in competition for domestic goods, but in productive enterprise. However, the Government are discouraging that and encouraging the very thing that everyone agrees should not be done. The whole of this Clause 22 is so contrary to common sense that one really wonders what is at the back of it.
Tory common sense.
I am glad to hear justification of it from my hon. Friend. In conclusion on this part of my remarks, I do want to know what is the attitude of the Party opposite, because if they believe in fair compensation then they must agree to extensive amendments to these Clauses. If the Government believe in giving what is politically expedient at tihis time, I can then understand the drafting of this Clause.
I pass to the second part of my remarks, dealing with the control and management of the finances of the industry once it is nationalised. I start with two remarks. I would say in the first place that one of the most important functions of this House of Commons is to control the spending of the taxpayers' money, and I would say that this Bill makes proper Parliamentary control quite impossible. Secondly, when you set up a monopoly you must make adequate provision for publicity so that consumers may see whether or not they are getting a square deal. Parliament has had many occasions to deal with total or partial monopolies in the past. Some of them have been private monopolies, some have been public, but in every case that I can remember Parliament has made careful provision for publicity and control, not always adequate perhaps, but the most inadequate of provisions made up to this time is a very great deal better than what we have in this Bill as I propose to show.
There are two quite obvious and familiar methods of bringing any industry under public control. You can either make a Minister directly responsible to Parliament for the operation of the whole industry, or you can set up a board with real responsibility, and with a measure, at least, of independence. There are well established safeguards which go with each of these methods. For what it is worth, my own opinion is that they are about equally disadvantageous. This Bill appears to combine both methods by omitting almost all the safeguards which you would normally have under either method, and including almost all the disadvantages of both methods.
I say flatly that this Bill makes it possible for the Minister to be the complete dictator of the mining industry. It enables the Minister to use the Board as a mere facade, behind which he can retire when it is convenient. He may, if he chooses, give the Board some rope, but he need not. Let me examine the relationship between the Minister and the Board according to this Bill. Let me take the money side. The Minister makes advances to the Board. So far, so good. That is all certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is controllable by the Public Accounts Committee, but once the money reaches the Board it disappears from Parliamentary control. Giving the matter the best consideration I can, I cannot see how the Comptroller and Auditor-General, or the Public Accounts Committee, can get behind the published accounts of the new Board in order to make a full examination. Let us look at the accounts. One would have expected the form of accounts to be prescribed by the Treasury, and to be open to ordinary Parliamentary scrutiny. But what do I find? It is to be prescribed by the Minister, who can do exactly as he likes. There is no room, under this Bill, for proper Parliamentary scrutiny of the Board's accounts.
I pass to the other matter, which the Minister dealt with briefly in his opening speech, namely, his power of direction. There is a very large number of specific powers of direction to the Board scattered through the Bill. There is also a general power of direction in Clause 3, which would cover almost anything of a general nature. These directions are not published. At any, rate, the Bill does not say so. If these directions are not to be published nobody can ever know whether any decision taken, apparently by the Board, has really been taken by the Board on industrial grounds, or has been forced on them by the Minister on political grounds. The Minister said that he was keeping civil servants out of this Bill. In this case who is going to advise him about the exercise of these very numerous powers of direction? [ Interruption. ] I misunderstood him then, and I take it back, but who is going to advise him? Is he going to be advised by civil servants or by his political friends? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me how it is to work out. Let me examine his powers a little more closely. He can give—again without publishing them—directions about wages policy. It would be a very good thing if the Government had a general wages policy. But I am not sure that it would be quite so good if they had a particular wages policy confined to the miners. I hope, therefore, that before any attempt is made to direct the wages policy of the new Board, the Government will take their courage in both hands and try to formulate a general wages policy of some kind.
Next, the Minister can without any doubt direct the selling policy of the Board. The Board is, under the first Clause, to make coal available at such prices as further the public interest. This is the very thing which the Minister is directed to have regard to under Clause 3 when he gives directions, and, therefore, the selling price of coal comes very clearly within the Minister's powers of direction. The Bill leaves it open to him to direct, if he chooses, different prices for different classes of consumer. That is to say, it leaves it open to the Minister to impose an indirect tax by means of a higher price of coal for some class of consumer who in his view can pay or can pass it on to someone else. This is within his powers under the Bill. It should not be, and the Bill should be altered accordingly. There is nothing in the Bill which says that the reports of Consumers' Councils to the Minister should be made public. The Minister said that you could not put everything into this Bill, but I should have thought he would have known enough to have realised that this would be regarded in some quarters as a matter of very great importance, and he might have spared a couple of lines of print to put it in. If, however, he assures us now that it has been his intention that the reports to him shall be published I do not doubt that he will agree to put in an Amendment on the Committee stage and I will not press the point.
If I thought that all that remained between us was a couple of lines I should be delighted to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this matter.
I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's point is this. He agrees in principle that reports of the Consumers' Councils ought to be made public and that his only difficulty is to find appropriate words to put in the Bill.
That is not the position at all. What is proposed is that the Consumers' Councils can make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister will see these recommendations and, if he thinks fit, can take action upon them. It is open at any time to an hon. Member of this House to ask the Minister a question about price levels or about the activities of Consumers' Councils, and a reasonably-minded Minister such as you would expect from this side—
I have had some experience of this matter of Ministers—in all Governments and not only in this Government—refusing to publish the reports of advisory committees, and although just occasionally you will get a Minister who will agree to publish a report the general practice for many years has been that until Parliament says that reports shall be published you cannot get them.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if that is going to be the exceptional case in his tenure of office, but of course it may not be long before he goes up higher; then perhaps we will have someone who is not so broadminded. It is of vital importance that we should have defined in this Bill whether or not these reports are to be published, and I say that if they are not to be published, the safeguard of the Consumers Council is of very little value indeed.
There are one or two other things which the Minister not only can but must do—approve development, an extremely important thing. I am not very clear who is going to advise him about that, if it is not the Board itself. Next, he can direct what subsidiary assets are to be taken over, and what subsidiary activities are to be indulged in by the Board—plainly matters of national interest. This most important aspect is in the hands of the Minister and not the Board, and it can be decided on political and not on industrial grounds. That seems to me to be not a very good thing. He can direct payments into reserve, and direct the application of payments out of reserve. One would have thought that that should be done on industrial grounds by the Board, but no, it is to be done by the Minister.
Finally, and I think this is a very curious feature, under Clause 27 there is no provision that the Board is to repay to the Treasury the proper annual charge in respect of interest and sinking fund. The only provision is that the Board is to repay through the Minister, passing on to the Treasury such amounts as the Minister may direct by way of recouping the Crown. "By way of recouping" does not, to my mind, convey any obligation on the part of the Minister to direct payments which will fully recoup the Crown, and I think that if the intention of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Bill should contain an obligation that the Board shall make full payments each year, these words must be altered. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, tell me if it is the intention that the Board should be directed to pay, a sum which will put the Treasury free of loss, a sufficient amount in interest and sinking funds to make sure that no burden is left on the taxpayer. If it is the intention, I think the Bill must be altered. If it is not the intention, then I say it should be. I agree that there is a great deal to be said nowadays for not having too rigid an annual account. There may very well be occasions when it is proper to carry over a deficit one year, or carry over a surplus the next year, but you ought to tell Parliament if you are going to do that.
If the Government can come down to Parliament and say, "Something has gone wrong this year and we ought not to insist on full repayments," and there is a reasonable case, they will get their way. But in this I can find nothing which insists on publication of the fact that the Minister has not directed the Board to pay the full appropriate sum. All we have is the perfectly useless condition that there shall be publication if the Board does not pay the full sum which the Minister has directed, and as the Minister is in complete charge of the Board, as I have shown, it is not in the least likely that the Board will fail to do what the Minister directs it to do; what is much more likely is that the Minister will not give the right direction. That is what we want to know about. I do not say that the Minister will always be right, but I do say that we ought to know in future what is the attitude of the Minister and what is the attitude of the Board. We ought to know who is the instigator of any particular line of policy. Is it the Minister or is if the Board? It is perfectly impossible to fix responsibility under the Bill as it stands, and that seems to me to be a very bad system.
To sum up on this particular point, there seem to me to be at least three methods under this Bill which enable the Minister to give a hidden subsidy to coal mining. I know the Minister said that no such concealed subsidy was possible, but I venture to dispute that. He may well say, "I did not intend to do it," but it is a very different thing to say that it cannot be done under the Bill. I say it can. It can be done in three ways at least: in the first place, by differential prices for selling coal, putting an indirect tax on those who are thought to be able to pay, as I said a moment ago, and passing that on as a subsidy to coal mining. As to the second way, I noticed that the Minister said it would be very foolish to leave subsidiary undertakings in the hands of the owners because they were very profitable—at least I understood him to say that, but if I am wrong, I will withdraw it.
Profits.
Well, profitable, the profits from those subsidiary undertakings can again be used to subsidise mining because there is no provision in this Bill for maintaining the separation of mining between mining and subsidiary undertakings. Thirdly, if my interpretation of Clause 27 is right, the Minister can subsidise coal mining by directing in any year a less payment into the Treasury than ought to be paid in if the taxpayer is to be protected against loss. Therefore, as the Minister has said that the Government do not intend to retain any method of concealed subsidy, I hope he will consult those interested so as to remove these three possible methods of doing this thing which should not be possible under the Bill.
When I turn from finance to more general questions of information I find the Bill even more inadequate. I do not think I have ever seen a more curiously drafted Clause than Clause 48, and I cannot imagine why the Minister has inserted this Clause, which says:
After all, there are two methods of protecting the public interest. One is publicity, the other is competition. We are at issue about this and hon. Members opposite say that publicity is a better protection to the public than competition, and I on the whole should say that competition is a better protection to the public than publicity. But you must have one or the other—surely we are all agreed about that—and if you have competition there might be some ground for a certain measure of less publicity. But if you have no competition here is a monopoly.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about foreign competition?"]—If the Minister will put in something to make it clear that this is only to be operative where it is undesirable that information should get to foreigners, I can see a point in it, but that is not the basis of this Clause. If that is all the right hon. Gentleman wants, I think we can find a form of words to tie it up to that, but that is not what the Bill says.
It says another curious thing. "Such information as can in the opinion of the Minister be made public"—not "in the opinion of the Board." If this concealment were really to be for industrial objectives, one would expect the Clause to say "such information as the Board thinks should be made public." But "such information as the Minister" is an invitation to him not to publish information which he considers damaging to the Government and to Socialism. I have already taken a long time and I will be very brief on this.
Ask for another day.
Let me state in a few sentences what I think is the minimum we ought to have in the Bill. I understand there are to be 50 or more corporations or companies operating in different groups of coalfields. There is bound to be decentralisation, but each group or unit ought to produce its own accounts at least up to the Cohen standard so that we can see how each unit is progressing and we ought to be able to see which are uneconomic units. I will not say that every uneconomic unit ought to be closed down, but we ought to know if it is running at a loss and we ought to be consulted about a failure.
On the information side, I think we ought to have a binding undertaking that not less information ought to be published than appears in the "Statistical Digest." If that was proper in the war years, it is proper now that we should have rather more information than less. With regard to differential prices, we ought not only to have knowledge of them if such exist, but there ought to be an obligation to justify before an independent tribunal any proposal to have differential prices as between different classes of consumers. That is quite a familiar thing in all manner of monopolies and semi-monopolies, and it ought to come in on this occasion as a protection for the consumers.
Why have we had put before us this authoritarian plan, by which the Minister is indeed given complete power, without adequate control by Parliament, to do what he likes with the Board? Why is there not in the Bill more adequate provision for disclosure of all the relevant information both about finance and statistics? If right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a democratic frame of mind, as they say they have, I should have thought they would agree that their first step must be to convince the public, as they go along, that nationalisation works fairly in practice. I should have thought they would agree to that, and I should have thought that everyone, whatever his views, would know that in this coun- try of ours you will never convince people of anything like that as long as there is the least suspicion that any relevant facts are being concealed. Therefore, I should have thought that right hon. Gentlemen would have gone out of their way to make certain that they took upon themselves full obligation to throw everything open to inspection, so that they would be in a position to confound their critics by showing how successful this new method of operation was. The Bill is completely wrongly drafted if that is their view. But if by any chance right hon. Gentlemen had at the back of their minds the fear that nationalisation of coalmining would not succeed, if by any chance one of their preoccupations was that the failures should not reach the public, at least before the next Election, then I am bound to say that I have seldom seen a Bill more skilfully drafted to achieve its purpose. I leave hon. Members in all parts of the House to draw their own conclusions from the manner in which the Bill has been drafted.
9.43 p.m.
I do not feel that the Opposition have got their hearts in this battle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who, for the time being, is the acting Leader of the Opposition, made a very agreeable speech, but there was not much punch in it.
My questions have not been answered.
I hope to reply to one or two of those questions during my speech. As I say, there was not much punch in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I did not feel that he was so passionate about this matter as he has been about some others, on which, occasionally, we have agreed with him. With regard to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), he had prepared an elaborate, ingenious, skilful lawyer's speech without, apparently, having read the White Paper, and, therefore, he did not know that the Mining Association had agreed in advance to all the things to which he was objecting. The Mining Association has "sold out" on the Tory Party. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention was drawn to that fact, he said, "Of course, we do not represent the Mining Association—we have no connection with them." This is a retrospective interpretation of economic relationships about which we beg leave to have our own opinions.
Since the question has been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the attitude of the Mining Association, I would like to make that clear, because, even if it might not affect the logical force, or the lack of force, of some of the arguments that have been adduced, it will help to settle the immediate problem which my right hon. Friend has succeeded, with, I think, very great skill, in negotiating in this field of compensation. If my right hon. and learned Friend would find time, later in the week, to read the White Paper, he will find that the terms of reference are set out in detail. It is also explicitly stated, "in terms," as I think the lawyers say, in the second paragraph, that the terms of reference have been agreed between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Mining Association.
They have agreed to the global sum, to which at first the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected in principle; and then, when I mentioned that the Mining Association had agreed, he shifted his objection from the ground of principle and said he objected because it was—and I took a note of his words—not a big enough global sum. [ Interruption. ] The Mining Association, however, have accepted the principle of the global sum as being reasonable; the Mining Association have withdrawn their opposition to the principles of the Bill; and they have declared they are prepared to facilitate what they say they regard as the inevitable transfer of this industry from private to public ownership. All this would suggest that they are sceptical as to the power of the Tory minority in this House, or of the Tory majority down the passage, to obstruct its passing into law; and, therefore, the Mining Association have given up the ghost. They have accepted this procedure. They have recognised that it is desirable to settle the matter as soon as possible, and that, to expedite compensation payments, the method of the global sum and the various other suggestions herein set out are the best and most practical methods to adopt. They have accepted all that. They have also stated that they think it is proper that the Government should negotiate with them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in effect: What right have the Mining Association to take a line of this sort on behalf of the owners? He was, perhaps, giving expression to a somewhat subconscious feeling that he might be a better trustee of the interests of the mining industry than the Mining Association itself; and to that I merely say that the Mining Association represents the owners of 97 per cent. of the coal mined at the present time. For this reason they have every right to speak for the owners of the property.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, if I understood him aright, that he was objecting to the compensation as being based upon inherently unjust principles. He could not believe that the Mining Association would ever have agreed to them.
I did understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, that the Mining Association had agreed to the principle of a 50 per cent. payment for the period of two years. The right hon. Gentleman does not deal with that point.
I will come to that in a moment. May I take these matters in their due order? But before I do so, I want to say a word about the relations between my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Board, the public and Parliament. I do not think the matter is as difficult as right hon. Gentlemen have seemed to make it out. Clause 3, Subsection (1) is completely clear. It states that the Minister may give general directions—not particular, but general, and that has to be worked out. [ Interruption. ] Well, is "general" a new word? It has often been used before in these contexts. The directions are of a general character. My right hon. Friend will speak for himself when we come to the Committee stage, and when these matters will be looked at in closer detail, Clause by Clause.
As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has no intention, after the Bill is passed, of interfering from day to day in the detailed management of the industry. The Board will be given wide powers and a great responsibility. It will be controlled, however, on general issues of national importance, by the directions issued by my right hon. Friend. He could issue directions, for instance, if it were a question of closing pits. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington who asked whether my right hon. Friend would interfere, if it was a question of closing a pit. The answer is that, if it were a question of closing one pit, the matter would be within the discretion of the Board. If, on the other hand, it were a matter of closing a large number of pits in the same coalfield, which might alter the social balance and economic conditions of the area, it would be within the scope of the power possessed, by my right hon. Friend to give directions and to intervene in the matter.
These things must be interpreted with the common sense and experience which are supposed to be strong points of the British character. I am sorry that the Opposition do not value them as highly as we do. These matters cannot be dealt with exclusively in legal terminology. Something must be left to the free play of common sense and empirical experience. Let me give another example. The export trade has been mentioned. It might very well be that a large issue would arise regarding the proportion of the total output of coal to be exported. That would be a large issue, and could not be left wholly within the discretion of the Board. In such a case my right hon. Friend would undoubtedly be entitled to intervene; and he would intervene—and this applies to a large number of other issues—not in a purely individual, Ministerial capacity. In matters of importance, he would intervene on behalf of His Majesty's Government as a whole, after due consultation with other Ministers concerned, and possibly, after the Cabinet had discussed the matter. The idea of my right hon. Friend as a dictator is a little difficult to sustain. I will come to the question of Parliamentary control in a moment, in relation to a later Clause in the Bill.
A good deal has been said about compensation. The Mining Association have accepted it in principle, although there is a certain doubt evident upon the other side of the House. I gather that no spokesman in the Debate today has objected in principle to the compensation being paid in stock rather than in cash. That has not been objected to, except that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that it seemed roundabout to do it that way. I should have thought it was exactly the reverse. Why take two bites at a cherry? Why, first of all, raise a new loan by inviting cash subscriptions, and then use the cash to pay the shareholders of companies according to a certain valuation? It is, surely, much easier, for a number of reasons, to make direct payments in stock. There is less disturbance in the money market. It is simpler and more direct, provided the amount and the value are agreed. But, it may be said, "Provided the stock is freely marketable" I do not think that any serious argument can be used against payment in stock rather than in cash; but this question of marketability has been raised. The main argument has been about the inalienability, or the non-transferability of this stock, in some conditions. There has been a very great deal of exaggeration and misunderstanding on the point.
I would like to state, if I can, in simple, clear and accurate terms what is provided in Clause 22, which is the Clause in question. The compensation stock will be freely marketable under the following conditions—I am putting into laymen's language the legal language of the Clause; I am adding nothing; I am just paraphrasing. Compensation stock will be freely marketable in the following conditions. First, if a company is being wound up, it will receive marketable stock to distribute to its debenture holders and shareholders. Second, if, without winding up, the company wishes to pay off debentures or to make a repayment of capital, it will again receive marketable stock to be distributed for this purpose. In the third place—and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got this point—if the company requires to sell stock in order to provide' funds for development or for the extension of other business, as, for instance, in the case of a severance of a composite concern, partly iron and steel and partly coal—in such a case, the company again will receive marketable stock to the necessary amount, which it can proceed forthwith freely to sell. In all these three cases—
If the Treasury consents.
Of course, certainly; but there is no intention to withhold Treasury sanction as a matter of principle in such a case.
May I ask a question on that point, because it is important, if the right hon. Gentleman says that the Treasury will release the funds no matter for what purpose the capital is used? [ Interruption. ] I thought not. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was giving rather a wrong impression.
No.
If the purpose for which they are to be sanctioned is one that commends itself to the Treasury. They will not release for a capital development of a kind they do not like.
I can put the point in this way. I am only trying to expound the meaning of the Clause as I understand it. There are three classes of cases, I have been suggesting, in which freely marketable stock becomes available to the final recipient, and it always reaches the final recipient in a marketable, transferable form. The freezing process only applies in certain cases, before the stock will have reached the final, individual recipient.
Now, I will mention—and, I think, this will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question—the condition in which we do desire and in this Clause are enabled to freeze this stock. It is only if the company wishes to do none of the three things that I have indicated. If it does not want to wind up, or if, without winding up, it does not wish to pay off debentures or make repayment of capital, or if it does not want to provide funds for development or extension of business other than coal, in that case we do not agree that the stock should be freely marketable. Why not? Because in this case the company has, in fact, ceased to be an industrial company at all, and has merely become, in effect, an investment trust, not entering into any new industrial activity of a productive character at all, but merely holding a quantity of investments on behalf of its shareholders and, very likely, wanting to throw large quantities of this compensation stock upon the market, in order to acquire industrial equities which would give a higher yield to its shareholders. This, we do propose to prevent. I make no bones about this. In this Clause we maintain that operations of this sort do not serve any social purpose at all; and, in addition to that, they may seriously disturb the gilt-edged market.
I do want to be absolutely clear on the facts. As I understand it, it is only the companies which do not wish to take any further industrial action, to put it that way, but will only remain as investment trusts, that he has in mind in this Clause.
I use the term "investment trust" in a general sense, in order to clarify the meaning. I am not using it as a term of art. Substantially, that is, I think, the true statement of the position. If the stock is to be used for productive purposes, we should make no objection. The Treasury must, in the last resort, exercise discretion in particular cases. There may be cases in which one thing may be alleged, and a quite different thing suspected. Subject to that, it is not our purpose, in administering this Clause, to interpose any bar to the use of this stock for productive purposes.
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that investments in equity do not serve productive purposes?
Certainly not, if it is simply a question of buying existing securities. That is only exchanging bits of paper. In the fourth instance, which I have taken, it is our intention, so long as this Government holds office, to safeguard the gilt-edged market against unnecessary disturbance and improper manipulation. That is part of our intention. The right hon. Gentleman will find that a new thought, no doubt. The gilt-edged market is not something of convenience only to a few rich men. I am sure I shall be speaking a commonly accepted truth when I say that it is of very great advantage and importance to great numbers of small people, who hold Government securities and gilt-edged securities in varying amounts, many of them quite small, that they should not be jigged up and down by this kind of manipulation of which I am speaking.
Moreover, if our cheap money policy is to succeed, it is necessary to prevent the throwing upon the market, needlessly, from the social point of view, of large chunks of Government securities in the way I have been describing—by defunct colliery companies, for instance, who have turned themselves into mere investment trusts. It is of great importance that this policy should be pursued, and that all should be able to borrow money cheaply, and at as stable a rate as possible. It is also desirable, from the point of view of productive industry, that money rates should be as low and as stable as may be.
So much for a point of which much has been made, but which only applies to quite a small residue of cases—the kind of case in which a colliery company would have gone out of business but not have been wound up, not having taken up any productive alternative occupation. I think that, in such cases, the freezing process is completely justified, and, if it is completely understood beforehand, it may be that very few cases will arise. If they know what we shall do, they are less likely to go that way.
Now I come to the interim payments under Clause 21. The right to these interim payments is recognised in Clause 18, and Clause 21 deals with the working of the matter. We want the earliest possible vesting date. The assets must be vested in the Board as soon as possible, and we must secure not only the earliest possible vesting date but also the least possible interval between that date and the final completion of these compensation arrangements. None the less, there must be an interval The right hon. and learned Gentleman said four years; we hope not. We, at any rate, shall do our best; we hope that the party opposite will pass this Bill quickly through all stages. That will help, and they could also help us by shortening the Committee stage. The sooner we get on with the job the better, because the end is quite clear, and why should we linger on the road? None the less, there will be an interval; and during that interval there must be some protection for the shareholders concerned. There were two possible ways of dealing with this. One would have been to allow so much per cent. on an estimated capital value of the compensation payment to be received. But that would have been very difficult, because we cannot at this stage—it might be different two years hence—make an effective estimate, pending the arbitration, of what the capital value of the compensation in any particular case would be. Therefore, that alternative being ruled out, we are driven back to the second alternative, the one adopted here, of awarding, in the interval, an income related to—though, I shall argue less than—the revenue earned in previous periods.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was unfair to pay only 50 per cent., and asked how we arrived at that figure. We arrived at it in this way. All the risk has gone out of the business at this stage; the concern is to be taken over and the payments are assured by the State. There is no risk left. No enterprise, in any proper sense, is left. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Hon. Members, of course, know that I was referring to the position of those receiving payment. That was clear. They cheered through their tears, but that was clear. These people are going to receive money for jam under this Bill; but if they are running no risk, and if the jam is sure, why need they expect to get the same income as they were getting before, when, according to them, they were running great risks? They must be prepared to lose money for that reason. That is the first part of the argument. The second part is, that no prudent company distributes all its profits. Indeed, a survey of statistical material suggests that the conservative companies—and I here use the word in a good sense, not a political one—the well-managed companies, seldom distribute more than some 60 per cent. of the profits they make; sometimes they only distribute some 40 per cent. But we said we would give these poor fellows the benefit of the doubt and would give them 50 per cent. Is not that fair and generous? That is the basis on which this 50 per cent. is arrived at, about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me. If he thinks it is too high, it is open to him to say so.
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman now withdraws the statement he made when interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the owners accepted the 50 per cent.?
No objection has been raised. It is part of the scheme. They know the whole scheme—
They have objected in the letter they wrote.
I am not trying to score a point; I am trying to say what the position is. The owners have been in touch, through the Mining Association, with the Ministry of Fuel and Power and with my right hon. Friend himself. By and large, the owners have accepted the arrangement proposed in the Bill as not unreasonable.
They have not accepted it.
I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman still wishes to get up, but I would like to finish my sentence. What I was saying was that the owners have, broadly speaking, accepted this position, as is clear from the White Paper in which the whole of these matters is set out. I do not know what letter the hon. Gentleman has got, but if he wishes to read something to the House I am prepared to give way to him.
I would like to remind the Chancellor of the letter that was written to the Government on 21st January by the Mining Association. It begins "Dear Minister," and contains the statement that, on any fair assessment of the needs of the case, a money payment equivalent to only 50 per cent. of former profits, and continuing for only two years, is utterly inadequate.
That is a point which, no doubt, can be further pursued in Committee. As I am reminded, the Mining Association have nothing to do with the Conservative Party, and it is very odd that even this limited degree of intercommunication is taking place.
It appeared in the Press.
That is some support for the statement that there is no connection. I have given the House reasons which should convince them that 50 per cent. is on the generous side, and, whether or not the Mining Association have written this letter, I am still prepared to defend that point of view. So much for that particular point.
I turn now to Clause 23, about the compensation to the debenture holders and the preference shareholders. This Clause is not designed to cover up any inadequacy in compensation. Its object is quite independent of the amount of compensation awarded, and it has nothing to do with penalising the creditors of the concern as the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought. Perhaps I may state briefly what the purpose is. It is to provide that whatever the amount of compensation, the relative interests of the debenture holders, preference shareholders and the ordinary shareholders shall be valued as interests in a going concern and not as on a liquidation. That is the purpose of the Clause, and that, I think, is fair and just. It is particularly fair and just to the debenture holders and the preference shareholders. I have seen in some of the financial organs of the Press, which I read from time to time, considerable approval of this particular Clause, even though certain other criticisms have been made in the same papers against the financial provisions of the Bill as a whole. That, at any rate, is the purpose of the Clause, and I think it is carried out by the wording which has been adopted. As regards the interim period, I think that, in the great majority of cases, the basis of 50 per cent. should enable the companies to meet their obligations to debenture holders and preference shareholders, and, at the same time, leave over a sufficient amount for distribution to the ordinary shareholders. I do not wish to go on too long on that particular matter, but I do assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are not lurking under those words any meaning such as he suspects.
Here I must turn to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the publicity arrangements laid down here, and the relation of the Treasury and the taxpayer to the working of the scheme. Here again, I think he has somewhat misapprehended the position. I maintain that the provision for the general efficiency of the financial arrangements is good, well conceived and effective, and that Parliament should be satisfied with it. It is laid down in Clause 1, subsection (4) that the revenues of the Board must be sufficient to meet outgoings taken on an average of good years and bad years. As with national budgeting, so with the budgeting of the National Coal Board; we take the surplus of one year and the deficit of another and we get an average. That means that the Board must pay, through the Minister, to the Treasury for the servicing of the various loans and advances made, whether in the initial act of compensation or in any subsequent arrangement for furnishing fresh capital to this rather dilapidated industry. They must pay to the Minister, and, through the Minister, to the Treasury, for the servicing of these advances as regards both interest and reasonable sinking fund. Further, in Clause 28, the Board have got to establish a reserve, and in Clause 29 the Minister may give directions as to the application of the reserve in general terms. That is, surely, reasonable and businesslike.
I have no doubt that, when we come to operate this scheme, part of the reserve will be applied to develop the assets. But that will not be enough. It is a dilapidated industry. Every commentator has said so—a dilapidated, out of date, down at heel industry under private enterprise. Therefore, we have to pump into it some new resources. That is why it is laid down that my right hon. Friend shall have made available to him a sum of up to £150 million for five years. A good deal of that will be wanted for working capital. One hon. Member in the course of the Debate said that we could not get much machinery for that, because before the war there was not much new mining machinery being made, the total output of the mining machinery in this country being only worth £3 million. That is a very serious reflection on both the productive capacity of that branch of private enterprise and the demand exercised. If the mining industry had been keener to get new machines, the output of new machinery would have been a lot greater. We have got to buck that up as well.
Let me observe that the costs to be met by this sum are not exclusively or mainly for new machines. There are pit sinkings. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) referred to the importance of sinking new pits, and pointed out that it would be very expensive to do so. That will eat up a good deal of this money. In addition to that, there is haulage. Read the comments of the Reid Report on the shockingly backward state of underground haulage. A lot of money will be needed to repair those neglects of private enterprise. [ Interruption. ] Read the Report. It has been accepted. There has been general acceptance on the Front Bench opposite. There may be a little rebellion behind. The Reid Report has been accepted as being a sensible, practical and helpful statement of the case. It says our underground haulage is in need of complete rejuvenation. A lot of money will have to be spent on that. Finally, ventilation in the pits, and many other such matters, will call for very large expenditure. Therefore, there will be no difficulty in spending this amount of money to good purpose.
Mr. Robert Foot, chairman of the Mining Association, said that some £300 million would be required to put the industry into proper condition; so evidently it is going to be a very big undertaking. It is, of course, quite true—and I admit it, and indeed emphasise it from my side—that you have got to balance this great demand on behalf of the mining industry for new capital, both in the financial sense and in terms of materials and labour necessary to make the things required, against the similar demand of a number of other industries. That is one of the things we hope to do with the aid of a little Bill, which I shall be introducing later on—so I need not dwell on that at the moment. There has to be planning and regulation and some degree of rationing of many of these demands for capital, coming simultaneously upon the market at this time. I do not think £150 million is any too much; and it could be increased later on, if the need were found, by a very minor amendment of the Bill.
As to publicity and Parliamentary control and understanding of the matter, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that, on the one hand, the Minister should not meticulously interfere with the daily working of the industry, but that, on the other hand, the House of Commons should. Surely, they are both interested. The House of Commons is entitled to all reasonable information to enable it to know how the industry is getting on; and we are anxious that such information should be furnished. I thought, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about Clause 48, that he had perhaps skipped over Clause 30. Clause 30 provides that proper accounts must be kept and presented to Parliament; and we attach great importance to that. We do not wish to conceal anything, we wish all the facts to be known, and the accounts will be kept in a proper manner. My right hon. Friend is as anxious as we all are that they should be properly audited and set out, so that the public and Parliament may form an intelligent view.
Will they come before the Public Accounts Committee?
Yes, on the spur of the moment I should say so. I cannot see why not. The essential point is that they will be presented to Parliament, and to the world, and that it will be possible to comment on them in the Press everywhere.
Moreover, in Clause 48, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, a further report—a sort of annual report on the operations of the industry generally—is required, and there is no reason to suspect that that will not be very full and informative. At the same time, there are some matters, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognised, on which, in view of foreign competition and so on, it might be desirable to go slow in regard to publication. Broadly speaking, however, having the accounting provisions, on the one hand, and the general report, on the other, I do not think it can be complained that Parliament and the public will not be fully informed. At any rate, it is our wish that they should.
Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that the accounts should be separated, to show the working profits or losses of each colliery?
I think that that would mean going into a great deal of detail. I cannot give an answer offhand, but I think it would be going into too great detail.
With regard to the taxpayer, it is laid down in Clause 27 (3), that if the Board should fail to meet its obligations to the Exchequer, that fact is to be reported to Parliament. Every Chancellor will support and welcome that provision. Parliament will know immediately of any failure of the Board to meet its obligations. Moreover, in Clause 42—I make this point also, because there has been some doubt in certain circles outside about the fairness of competition between public and private concerns—the Board is required to pay all rates and taxes such as would fall on a private concern. That should be noted; it should not be thought that there is any alleviation in that direction. They will pay their Income Tax and local rates like everybody else. To sum up on this part of the Bill, I should have thought that these provisions ensure that the Board will carry on its business with proper regard both to its financial responsibilities, and to keeping Parliament and the public fully informed.
I am anxious not to continue too long, and I therefore now turn for a moment to some considerations which are wider than these financial Clauses. The purpose behind this Bill is very simple. It is to substitute for an admittedly inefficient private industry, what we hope and intend to make an efficient public industry. Private ownership in this industry has a pretty poor record. Perhaps I might give just one illustration, drawn from a part of the country which I know well. In South-West Durham, the great achievement of private enterprise in the mining industry has been the creation of a vast underground lake, under which millions of tons of good coal are drowned. Through the failure of the colliery companies to cooperate, and as a result of short-sighted, small-minded men refusing to work together, in joint pumping arrangements, underground water flowing downhill from the dales in the West towards the sea, gradually broke through first one natural barrier and then another, drowning out one colliery working after another, until literally millions of tons of good coal have been rendered unobtainable, thousands of good men have been thrown out of work, and dozens of mining villages have been rendered derelict. That is the record of private enterprise. Some day, under public ownership, it may seem worth while to pump out that area and to restore the lost occupation of the mining community there. The coal will indeed be needed.
In conclusion, I want to say a word to my friends the miners—and they are my friends. It is to the support of miners and miners' wives that I owe my seat. This is a historic day in the long, hard, grim story of the British mining community. It is a day for which many a miner and many a miner's wife has dreamed, and waited, and longed, and worked for many years. More than 50 years of agitation and of political education have been needed to bring this day. At long last we have got it. We have a majority here, which intends to nationalise the mines, and to see that the mineworkers get, for the first time, what they deserve. The mineworkers have, for many decades, been the storm troops both on the political field and on the industrial field—and, when war came, on the battle field; for, as the Germans, at least, know, there are no finer fighters in the British Army than the forces drawn from the coalfields, the Durham Light Infantry, the South Wales Borderers, the Northumberland Fusiliers, and many another. It is time these men had justice, and got from their country what they deserve from their country.
We are setting forth in this Bill upon a great adventure; but he who never adventures gets nowhere. It is conceivable that this experiment may fail, as private enterprise has failed down the years. But I believe it will succeed and I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. T. Smith) said earlier this evening, that a new spirit will arise in the coalfields, when the miners feel that, at long last, this claim of theirs to serve the people and the whole community rather than a group of profit seekers has been achieved. In this Parliament, we are going to nationalise a lot of industries and services, as my right hon. Friend, the Lord President of the Council, announced the other day; but this Government have decided that, among the great industries of this country, the miners shall have pride of place, that theirs shall be the first industry to be transformed from private inefficiency into public service, that among the great industries [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bank of England."] Nobody would call the Bank of England a great industry. A great financial convenience, but not a great industry. The Government have decided that among the industries of this country, in the great forward march of Socialist accomplishment, the miners shall lead the way.
10.29 p.m.
I feel that I am perhaps somewhat fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at this moment. We on this side of the House have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with considerable interest. He started with a very quiet, moderate and interesting note on the subject of compensation, but in the concluding stages of his remarks, I felt somehow that I saw a pale reflection of what must take place on the hustings in South-West Durham. Certainly, he gave us a very clear impression of the high hopes he and his friends opposite have encouraged among the miners of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I hope there will not be too many interruptions, as they tend to increase the length of speeches. I was not, however, making any complaint—none whatever. I was about to say that I wanted to examine this Bill a little carefully, and try to help to see that these hopes would not be disappointed.
There are many aspects of this Bill, and one of them, to which importance may be attached, is certainly this question of compensation which has been discussed by the two right hon. and, one might almost say very learned Gentlemen, who have just contributed to the Debate. One thing is perfectly plain about the provision for compensation. It is going to be a lengthy, complex and very expensive business. But for my part I propose to leave the question of compensation entirely to those who can talk about it. I pass to that aspect of the Bill which concerns the handing over of the colliery companies to what is euphemistically called public ownership. I am bound to say, on reading the Bill, that the public will have singularly little opportunity for exercising that control over property which is normally associated with that term. As to the suitability of the industry for State monopoly, I hope to deal with that in my concluding observations.
As I think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Fuel and Power said when he opened the Debate, some of the most important aspects of the Bill are in reference to matters which are not contained in it at all. They are in the background. The Bill, in the last resort depends on whether we can produce more coal under nationalisation and whether we can produce it more cheaply. I do not think we can. I saw that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury speaking in the country the other day on the nationalisation of the railway companies said that under nationalisation we should have coal fires in all the railway waiting-rooms. But having coal fires in all the waiting-rooms is not going to be dependent on the nationalisation of the railways or of the coalmines, but on whether we have a practical policy for coal. Therefore I ask this question: Will this Bill as it appears before us make it easier to put through that reorganisation of the industry so ably advocated in the Reid Report, or will the Bill make that reorganisation more difficult? Will it attract miners to the industry in ever increasing numbers, and will it enable the Minister to deal satisfactorily with those miners when he gets them? Above all, will it safeguard the position of the consumers, because if there is one section of the community which we really do represent more than anybody else, it is the consumers?
I will deal first with the question of the reorganisation of the industry. The need for that has been argued on so many occasions, that it is really unnecessary for me to repeat those arguments. They are set out very fully in paragraphs 752 to 758 of the Reid Report. There is the question of reducing the number of production units, or, say colliery owners, or what you will. I will tell you why in my view that has not been done before. I think there are two reasons. One was the obstruction which has come in the past from what I could call the sullen resentment of the Mining Association corporations of any suggestion whatever for the reorganisation of the industry. The second was what I might call the dogged conservatism of the Mine workers Federation in reference to most ideas concerned in new methods and new machinery. [ Interruption. ]Surely if hon. Members on this side of the House can stand me talking about the Mining Association as I have done, Members on the opposite side can stand me talking about the mineworkers in that way. May I say at once to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that so far as the Mining Association is concerned, they no longer trouble us. The colliery owners can now go into honourable retirement. The burden of responsibility is lifted from their shoulders. Whatever the future of the industry, and whatever new forms of energy may be devised as an alternative to the use of coal, the mine-owners can rest content. They can sit back and draw their State income from their inalienable bonds. It is perfectly true that this most ingenious piece of Parliamentary drafting has ensured that they will be more or less practically free from further participation in productive effort. But then they cannot have everything.
The mineowners' obstruction is therefore out of the way, and I want now to deal with the position of the mine-workers. I am not saying this as any attack upon the mineworkers. I am trying to be objective. The fact is that we cannot carry out a major reorganisation of the structure of the mining industry without that reorganisation having very important repercussions on the mine-workers themselves. I think all are agreed on that. They have—and I say this in no offensive sense—a vested interest in the existing structure. Their homes are the colliery villages and towns; they have been born in them, brought up in them, and they earn their living there at the present time. This is what was stated in the Reid Report: vestige behind which every one of the existing inefficiencies will go on just as they have done before.
That brings me to the position of the mineworkers themselves and their future. A good deal has been said, in the past, about the psychological effect of nationalisation upon the mineworkers. It has been suggested that the feeling of working for the State, the mere effect of nationalising, will of itself give an immense impetus to the work put in by the miners. I do not think anybody would put forward that argument at the present time. I do not think anyone believes it. I do not think that the miners' leaders themselves believe it. The facts and figures are heavily against it. I do not want to quote any figures, for I know what right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite think about figures—and some which have been quoted against them they have not liked. In 1945, the whole of which was a period of Government control and six months of which is under the guarantee that the mines were to be nationalised, the miners produced 245 tons per man. In 1941 that total was 295, a drop of 50 tons. In 1945 the same number of men with rather more machinery produced 32,000,000 tons less coal. I do not think that anybody in the face of that situation, could say that we have secured any psychological effect yet. I saw a report in the paper the other day that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power was looking for a chairman for his Coal Board I believe he is. I saw it reported in the papers that he was offering it to my right hon. Friend the Senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan). I do not think it was a bad choice.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept everything he reads in the newspapers?
Certainly not. I understood the right hon. Gentleman himself to say that he was looking for a chairman. I am only trying to be helpful. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the City of London, would be a bad chairman.
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by being helpful? Does he want the job himself?
No, I would not take it. I am coming to that. After all, if you are going to set up a great monopoly, you might just as well have a great monopolist to run it, and my right hon. Friend the Senior Member for the City of London has been chairman of the Iron and Steel Federation, chairman of the Central Electricity Board, a director of the Bank of England, and a director of Imperial Chemical Industries. Mr. Robert Foot is a mere amateur in monopolies compared with him.
My hon. Friend could settle this matter quite easily. Why not ask the right hon. Gentleman?
My right hon. Friend the Senior Member for the City of London could contribute to the Debate himself. In fairness to him, I should say that it was also reported that he, at least, had refused the job. I understand that the Minister is now hawking this job round the City of London. I understand that the—
Really, this is becoming a bit of a farce. The hon. Member has a reputation in this House which he should try to sustain. I am speaking quite seriously. He can take it from me, quite honestly, that he has a reputation to sustain. He talks about hawking the chairmanship of this Board round the City of London. Will he produce a tittle of evidence to support that contention?
I am sorry if this is worrying the right hon. Gentleman. He does seem to be slightly unnecessarily agitated. After all, the question of the appointment of this chairman is rather important, and I would be very glad if he would say what the figure of the salary is. It is rather important that we should know. The salary so far reported is £17,500 a year, but apparently there are no takers for it. The object of my remark is: What are the miners going to think about all this, about this chairman for this Board at a salary of £17,500 a year? What is going to be the psychological effect upon the miners?
There will be no psychological effect at all, because no mine-worker who is sensible believes that statement.
If the statement is wrong, it would be quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman to say, quite frankly, what salary is being offered.
That is quite easy. When I appoint the chairman of the Board, and when I announce the name of the gentleman, there will be no objection to stating what the salary is.
I do not want to pursue the matter too far, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to put an end to this, why not get up and tell us quite frankly what the position is? For years, in the mining districts, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been doing everything in their power to stir up agitation against the men who earn the big money. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really believe that he will get very much psychological effect from an operation of this kind. But if the scheme is to prove successful, it is necessary—as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out—to carry the mineworkers with us in this. I do not believe that we will do that, either by speaking only soft words to them, or by making them endless concessions. What is required is a combination of straight talking and fair dealing, and if the House will permit me, I hope to do a little straight talking for a very few moments now.
The first thing to do is to make this point perfectly plain: that in no circumstances will the public in this country maintain—and they will certainly not increase—miners' wages on the basis of declining production and increasing costs. Any attempt to establish a situation of that kind, to try and make this scheme into some kind of miners' benefit fund, is doomed to failure, and I think the Minister would agree with me on that point. The second thing is that if wages are to be maintained, it can only be done, if the miners are prepared to accept the obligations which are set out in the Reid Report, and to accept particularly the need to increase the output of coal per manshift.
Would the hon. Gentleman tell me what he proposes to do if the miners refuse his terms? Has he not realised yet that the miner has the whip hand?
Oh.
I want to make it perfectly plain, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that we do not concede the position at all that the miners have the whip hand, and if this great nationalisation Bill is to be put through on terms of that kind, then it is doomed to failure even before the end of the discussions. Two years ago some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House devoted a considerable amount of thought to what could be done in order to improve the conditions of mineworkers within the industry. Hon. Members opposite are entitled to disagree with our conclusions, but at that time we produced a report, and we required, as part of a comprehensive scheme, an established labour force within the industry, a guaranteed employment for a years assessment, a 5-day week, and representation of the mineworkers from the top to the bottom of the industry. I do not think it is unreasonable that the mineworkers should expect from a Socialist Administration terms at least as favourable as those that were offered by a Conservative Committee.
rose —
I would give way but the hon. Gentleman will probably have an opportunity of speaking later. Looking at the Bill at this stage, I would say that it makes a reorganisation of the structure of the industry, on the whole, more difficult; more difficult because it will be subject constantly to direct pressure from one particular section of those engaged in it. I think it makes the miners' position no better, and I think it makes the consumers' position definitely worse. Therefore, I am driven to ask the question: Why set up a State monopoly at all? No Commission of recent years has recommended it, unless the right hon. Gentleman wants to hark back to the diverse counsels of the Sankey Commission. Certainly it was not recommended in the Reid Report, which recommended the amalgamation of existing colliery undertakings in particular areas, and recommended further, that they should have complete autonomy, financial and otherwise, within their reorganised groups.
The only previous report which recommended monopoly in any shape or form was the report which Mr. Robert Foot produced for the Mining Association of Great Britain, and the right hon. Gentleman has followed the Foot Report very closely in this Bill. His Board is somewhat smaller than Mr. Foot's board, but the Board has the same responsibility for fixing the prices within the industry. There is the same elimination of competition, not only as between mine and mine, but as between district and district. Even in details he has followed it. Every colliery is to be brought in which has more than 30 people working underground. Mr. Foot claims that his Report kept in reserve the best elements of private enterprise. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman claims that his report contains the best elements of Socialism. From the consumers' point of view, there does not seem to be much to choose between them. They are both monopolies. deciding where the balance of advantage has lain; but not one of them has been argued by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the Bill.
We should reject the Bill because no practical advantage has been urged in its support, and no safeguard against possible abuse. We oppose it, not because it is a revolutionary Measure, but because it is wholly inadequate to the great task which confronts the Government and the nation at the present time.
10.54 p.m.
It is difficult for me to follow the hon. Member, especially when he speaks about the Reid Report. At the conclusion of that Report, it states that they came to the conclusion that it was not enough simply to recommend temporary changes, when it was evident that those would be satisfactorily carried through by the industry, organised, as it was, under private enterprise.
Subject to a few adverse comments, I welcome the main principles of the Bill. Like all Measures, it may require some amendment before reaching the Statute Book, but members of a potential Gestapo could not lay claim to the capacity to produce a perfect Bill and neither could anyone expect the representatives of the wild men of Blackpool to give it unqualified support. As an ex-miner, I accept it as the consummation of many of my best hopes and efforts. I have often said that mineworkers have an obligation to the community. The mandate given at the last Election to take over the mining industry was the community's recognition of its obligation to the men who produce coal. It is an appreciation of the fact that the mining industry, with its low wages, periods of unemployment, low compensation payments, high death and accident rates and long hours, has a record even blacker than its product. The miner pays a very high price for the right to work—he pays in terms of disability, disease and death.
Many, if not all, Members of the Opposition will express disapproval of this Bill, especially the Tory Reform Committee, of which the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) is a shining example, because in its pamphlet, "A National Policy for Coal," it states that, of all industries, coal, with its infi- nite variety and complexity, is the last on which the experiment of nationalisation should be tried. Yet, with this Government, it is to be the first. There are statements in the pamphlet with which I agree, but when it is claimed that miners are "conservative" and "practical-minded" folk, it is evident that the owners know as much about miners as they do about mining. The miners for many years, at least during my political life, have always stood for nationalisation of the mining industry.
"Conservative" is used in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls its good, as well as its political sense.
I note with considerable satisfaction that the question of the mine-workers' safety and health is to be the concern of the Minister. The nation, even in the beginning of 1946, has not yet realised the price paid by the producers of coal for the right to work. In the 12 years, 1932–1943, we lost in the mines no less than 10,306 workers, equal to the population of a decent-sized town. In addition, more than a million and a half mine workers were injured and rendered incapable of working for three, six or more days. More than 261 boys under 16 were killed in the production of coal, and more than 60,000 injured and rendered idle—killed and maimed at an age when the boys of those who oppose our demand for social ownership of the mines are in school receiving necessary education. That tragic price will never be reduced under the existing private ownership of the mines, because improved safety measures will never be introduced unless it is economical to do so. I make that statement as a miners' agent for eight years. When I negotiated with the local employers regarding the introduction of what is known as a steel prop, it had been contended by the owners that the steel prop would effect a saving in the life of the miners, but that prop would never have been introduced had it not meant a saving of from 9d. to 1s. 6d. a ton in the cost of producing coal.
In a period of 19 years more persons have been killed from the causes to which I have already referred than in explosions in a period of over 86 years. We shall never make the mining industry attractive unless we first of all make it safe. In the last 17 years for which statistics are available, over £50,000,000 have been paid out in compensation, and as an ex-miner I am of the opinion that the death and accident rate cannot be substantially reduced unless we are convinced that it is more economical to spend money on the means to prevent mining accidents than the payment of compensation.
I have always believed in and supported the nationalisation of the mines, because I am convinced that only under that system is it possible to secure decent wages for the mineworkers, a reasonable working day, improved conditions of employment, more coal and cheaper coal—but not on the day following that on which this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It is very fashionable nowadays to say, "I believe in nationalisation," and to conclude from that that we shall immediately get an increase in output. I have always believed in nationalisation, because I have looked upon it as being a prerequisite for the complete scientific reorganisation of the mining industry. Those of us who have represented depressed areas are interested in new industries for old, but that will remain a dream unless we can get light, heat and power, all of which are impossible unless we get more coal. I am convinced that the planning of the mining industry is an imperative need. I am also convinced that planning implies control and that effective control cannot be secured unless public ownership is secured first. The present system has failed to supply the amount of coal required. To listen to those who oppose this Bill, one would think that the decrease in the output of coal commenced in 1938. In fact, the mining industry has been gradually dying for the last 21 years. The output in 1944, compared with the output in 1923, shows a decrease of no fewer than 83,000,000 tons. Therefore, it is futile for hon. Members, whether they be coalowners or representatives of the colliery companies, to argue from the other side of the House as if the decline commenced in 1938. As I have already stated, the industry had been gradually decaying for a period of 23 years. We are now told by the colliery owners, that it will require an expenditure of £150 to £300 million to modernise the mines of Great Britain. The present owners by their ineptitude and incapacity have failed to manage the industry which they owned. They engaged the services of an ex-B.B.C. director, a man who admitted that all he knew about the industry was learnt as the result of seven months' intensive study of a Commission's Report. To engage a man like that to manage the industry is evidence that the people who owned the industry were unable to plan. That was the only originality shown by them for many years.
This Bill may not have an easy passage through the House, but what a change it is that we on this side of the House are now able to say that we shall get it whatever the opposition. For once we on this side of the House are in a position to declare that we have the effective power within the Lobby, just as we probably shall listen to the usual painful Tory predictions of the future of the mining industry. In any event, its past deserves no praise. We shall be told, as we have always been told, when we demanded or suggested desirable and legitimate changes, that they involve interference with private enterprise; we shall destroy individual initiative; it will involve the regimentation of the miners and the people of the mining valleys; it will destroy personal freedom; it will involve bureaucratic forms of government; and that ultimately it will establish a totalitarian State. All I want to say is that the people I represent have heard those statements before, and familiarity with those gloomy charges has bred contempt.
The people I represent exist in virtue of the mines in my Division, and they knew little of freedom during the inter-war period. For 17 years the only freedom they had was to go to the Assistance Board. They were denied the freedom to work in order to maintain their own families. I lived, as I have stated, in a Division that lost over 12,000 as a result of migration. The only freedom that they were able to exercise was to destroy family life, break up their homes, and go elsewhere. I can never understand why, when we hear these charges made by members of the Tory Party, we never hear any criticism of 10,000 officials at the Assistance Board, and about 20,000 at the employment exchanges. There were many subjects to which I should like to refer, but it is fast approaching finishing time, and I want to raise the question of subsidences. The Bill makes provision for the Minister to take over existing liabili- ties, and, whatever the Minister may think, I see no objection to inserting the Clause that, in the event of any additional subsidences taking place, the Board will be responsible for the damage to people or property as the result of mining operations.
There is much I should like to say on the Bill, but I have to be content with making these few observations. I am also anxious that we shall be told something of the form of administration between the National Board and the miners. I am convinced that it will not be the Board which gets the coal: the coal will be produced at the mines. We are anxious to know what form of administration will exist between the National Coal Board and the miners; and also I want to suggest that the Minister will serve a useful purpose if he has regard to the observation of Judge Sankey, which was, that we have miners who have the technical knowledge and who know probably as much as it is possible to know about the mining industry. We are interested in the services of these men being utilised before the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
Ordered: "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor. ]
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
Adjournment
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. R. J. Taylor. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.