House of Commons
Wednesday, January 30, 1946
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
Royal Air Force
Shiabah Camp, Paiforce
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if conditions at Shiabah Camp, Paiforce, have been improved, particularly in regard to food and health.
There has been an improvement in food and some small improvements in the camp at Shiabah during recent months and these improvements have been reflected in decidedly better health statistics. But I must tell the House frankly that the real job of bringing this very difficult Station up to modern standards on the scale now necessary has only just begun. Additional refrigerators are now on their way to the Station by sea. The building of an up-to-date and air-conditioned central airmen's dining room and institute has been approved and the production of the necessary building materials has been begun. What is really needed, however, is to build a completely new modern air-conditioned camp including, of course, really ample refrigeration facilities. This will be done but the House will understand that in present circumstances it is a fairly long-term project.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in regard to minor amenities, such as prompt delivery of mail and newspapers, anything has been done in the last few months?
Yes, Sir; I am informed that that has been done.
Could the Under-Secretary say whether this station is in Persia?
It is in the Persian Gulf.
Can the Under-Secretary say whether the officers there have hard-lying allowance and, if so, why is not a similar allowance made to other ranks?
I should need notice of that question.
War Gratuities (Regular Airmen)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when war service gratuities will be paid to Regular airmen who sign on for further service.
The date has not yet been fixed. But meanwhile, as the White Paper on postwar pay makes clear, service will continue to count for war gratuity up to 15th August next.
Does not the Under-Secretary agree that doubt in this matter is delaying quite seriously recruitment to the regular Air Force?
If there is such a doubt, I am very glad of this opportunity to dispel it, but we cannot pay the gratuities, because they are still being earned in the case of regulars up to next Autumn.
Bomb Stocks
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that many bombs, including 10 ton bombs, are still stacked on the Horncastle—Caistor Road and cause apprehension to the farming community; and what steps he is taking to have them removed.
There are, of course, no fuses in the bombs to which the hon. Member refers, but all the Departments concerned realise the importance of taking every possible precaution while these stocks are in the open. I am afraid that it is simply impossible to find at once the labour necessary to move and dispose of the very large stocks of bombs which we possess.
Is the Minister aware that there are roads still closed in that vicinity, and will he say why, if the bombs are as safe as all that, the roads are still closed?
The hon. and gallant Member must give me notice of the particular roads which are closed. Whether they are closed for that reason or not, I do not know.
Air Trooping
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the cause of the delay at No. 62 P.D.C., R.A.F., S.E.A.A.F., where R.A.F. officers are kept waiting for trooping at Karachi for over a month instead of the promised four days.
Bad weather in December delayed the air trooping programme, and there was an accumulation of personnel at Mauripur. We have succeeded, however, in reducing the average time spent by each man at the camp during January to three days.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many drafts for overseas have been held up in the United Kingdom owing to shortage of spare parts for transportation aircraft; and what steps he is taking to provide reserve aircraft against such contingency.
None, Sir. Reserve aircraft are available in Transport Command squadrons.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many Servicemen have been flown home under the air-trooping scheme in each of the months November, December and January from the Far East.
The figures are as follow:
Is the Under-Secretary aware that he stated that there would be 12,000, that that statement, for one reason or another, has not been able to be fulfilled, and that that failure is causing great discontent on the part of people who looked forward to the programme being carried out?
No, Sir. I stated that 10,000 a month would be flown each way, and then I made a very full statement to the House recently as to why that programme had been cut down to 5,000 a month for safety reasons.
But does the Minister realise that the point is that the men were informed that the figure would be 10,000, and, now that it is only 5,000, there are, quite naturally, great disappointment and disillusion?
The hon. and gallant Member must realise why; a great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out the safety factor.
It was a misstatement.
Does the hon. Gentleman see any objection to extending this mode of sending men home by air?
I do not see any objection, but, unfortunately, I see an impossibility. Transport Command have not the resources with which to do it.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that transit camps in Bombay are overcrowded with troops awaiting repatriation; that no boats have left the port during the last fortnight; that the air-trooping scheme is well behind schedule; and what steps he proposes to take to speed up transport arrangements.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the Warli R.A.F. camp, S.E A.A.F., at the prolonged detention of men assembled there for demobilisation; how many men are now there; the number, respectively, who have been in residence since October, November and December, 1945; how many ships have sailed from Bombay and their complement of Servicemen for demobilisation.
There has been an accumulation of airmen in the R.A.F. Rest and Leave Camp, Worli. On 25th January, there were 213 officers and 1956 airmen awaiting repatriation. I am making inquiries regarding the numbers there in October, November and December and will communicate with the hon. Member. Shipping is now becoming available and all arrears of Air Force personnel will be cleared up by February 8th next. Since 1st October last, 34 ships have sailed from India including 27 from Bombay carrying 31,379 members of the Air Force. There were no sailing in the first half of January but four ships have sailed within the last fortnight, including one (the Cape Town Castle) carrying 4,325 R.A.F. passengers. As the House knows, the air trooping programme has now been cut down to a lift of 5,000 men a month each way but this figure is being achieved. Sufficient air and sea transport taken together will be available to cover all R.A.F.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these R.A.F. lads in India have a slogan, "All boats for 'Blighty,' none for Indonesia," and will he assure them that every available boat will be used for repatriation?
The boats I have spoken of were on the way home to "Blighty."
Aircrew Cadets
6 and 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether men who have completed the wireless operator part of the wireless operator navigator course for aircrew, and have since become redundant, are eligible for the rank of sergeant and for the award of the signal badge;
(2) whether men who have completed the wireless operator part of the wireless operator navigator course for aircrew, and have since become redundant, are to be classified as wireless operators or in the category of general duties.
Aircrew cadets who are under training as navigators cannot, as a rule, be promoted to the rank of sergeant and awarded the aircrew badge until they have completed their training as navigators. We have, however, decided that cadets who have not completed their navigator training and who are no longer required for employment in that category may be promoted to sergeant and awarded the aircrew badge as wireless operators (air) if they have qualified to the appropriate standard. This is a special arrangement to meet present conditions, and we shall shortly issue the necessary instructions to the Service.
Closed Roads, Berkshire
8 and 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) if steps will now be taken to remove the Defence Regulation closure of two Class I roads, one Class II road and 11 unclassified roads in the combined district council areas of Abingdon, Faringdon, Wantage, Wallingford and Bradfield, in the county of Berkshire, on account of the inconvenience to residents;
(2) the reason for the continued closing of the Abingdon—Dry Sandford Road, across the airfield at Abingdon, the previous grounds of operational necessity for dispersal purposes being no longer valid, but the inconvenience of the residents in the district remaining unresolved, since a detour of some miles is involved.
I understand that arrangements have been made for the hon. Member to give our local superintending engineer further particulars of the roads about which he is most concerned. I will then have the matter reviewed again and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible. Meanwhile, we are arranging for the Abingdon—Dry Sandford Road to be opened again across the R.A.F. Station at Abingdon, though for the time being there will have to be a traffic control for safety.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that keeping roads still closed in different parts of the country causes the greatest inconvenience to local residents, and, as a great many airfields are not used for aircraft, but only for storage, is it not difficult to see what the danger is?
The trouble is that, in the Abingdon case, many of the roads which the hon. Member has in mind have been completely obliterated in the course of building the airfields, and they cannot be reopened. I hope the hon. Member will meet our representative there and see what can be done.
Are we to understand from that answer that it is the policy of the Air Ministry to refuse to replace roads which have disappeared?
No, Sir; they can be replaced, but these particular ones cannot be reopened.
Demobilisation
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how the present release of personnel in the accounts branch of the R.A.F. now compares with other release groups and when he anticipates that all groups will be brought into line.
Airmen in the accounting trades were last month seven, are this month five, and will next month be four groups behind. How soon they catch up depends upon whether, and if so, by how much, the general rate of demobilisation is further accelerated.
Can the Minister say whether the question of releases in the accounts branch has anything to do with the mutinies in India?
No, Sir. There was no indication of that.
May I ask whether it would be possible, in the new intake, to see that a certain number of young men are trained in this branch? It is not a very highly skilled branch, surely.
We are training them on a very large scale, and I have given the figures to the House on many occasions.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why demobilisation of R.A.F. officers in the equipment branch is so far behind other branches in the Service; and when will officers in group 28 be released.
Royal Air Force officers in the equipment branch are four groups behind the general level of release. This is because of the heavy burden thrown on that branch by the huge task of receiving, storing and disposing of surplus equipment. There was also a deficiency of equipment officers at the end of the war. I cannot forecast when equipment officers in group 28 will be released, this must depend on whether and, if so, by how much the general rate of release is speeded up. We are doing all we can by way of retraining surplus G.D. officers to level up the rate of release in this branch.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider granting permanent commissions to N.C.Os. of this branch so that they can take on the work of officers and thus enable them to go back to civilian jobs?
We offer permanent commissions to all suitable applicants, but I do not think we should specially favour N.C.Os. in this branch as against others.
All branches.
That is so.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which demobilisation group in the R.A.F. will have been reached by May.
We have announced that group 28 will be reached by the main body of R.A.F. officers and airmen by the end of March. The forecast of releases up to the end of April will be published shortly, and that is as far as we can go at present.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what documentary evidence is required to support an application for Class C release.
I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the detailed Service Regulations. These show the kind of independent evidence we need before making decisions in various types of Class C release cases.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point? I had a case where an airwoman, who wanted compassionate release, was told to produce a medical certificate, a letter from a bank manager, a letter from the local M.P. or J.P., and a letter from S.S.A.F.A. Will the hon Gentleman not use the Army Welfare Service for this type of work?
I use the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association very freely, and I think they do good work.
Will the hon. Gentleman have this list published in the OFFICIAL REPORT as most hon. Members are interested in the answer?
That is a very good suggestion; I will do so.
"It is essential that facts relied upon be confirmed or established by independent corroborative evidence. Evidence of the following nature should ordinarily be available and acceptable—
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that for some weeks past a number of R.A.F. personnel have not been issued with civilian raincoats on release at Wembley and that many of these airmen have not been informed that they are entitled to retain their Service greatcoats until the civilian raincoats are forwarded to them; and if he will issue an instruction that in every case the airman's attention is to be drawn by the staff of all release centres to this entitlement.
The staff at Wembley have already been given written orders to let an airman know that he may borrow a Service greatcoat if there is no suitable civilian coat ready for him. We have confirmed these instructions by an Air Ministry letter to all our Clothing Centres.
Is my hon. Friend aware that I have given him particulars of an airman who went to this particular place at Wembley and was without civilian clothing seven weeks after coming from the centre, and could he say if this sort of thing is general or not?
If a civilian suit was being made for him, as it was for me—I am wearing such a suit at the moment—it would take about eight weeks to have it made to measure.
Bombing Exercises, Swindon
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the alarm caused recently to the people of Swindon by the dropping of bombs in the vicinity of the town by the R.A.F.; and why, if such bombing practices are necessary, no notice was previously given to the public.
No bombs were dropped during the air exercises which took place near Swindon on the night of 15th January. Some photo flashes were, however, released over the authorised bombing range at Odstone Down. The sharp re- port of these flashes, which explode about a mile and a half above the ground, probably gave the impression that bombs were falling. I regret the anxiety which may have been caused to people in the neighbourhood. We are now considering the best means of issuing a public warning before exercises of this kind.
Can the Minister say why this bomb flash, or whatever it was, fell so wide of the target?
That is the inevitable result of precision bombing.
Hutments, Waltham
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the Grimsby Rural District Council on 5th November, 1945, wrote for permission to use as temporary dwelling-houses the R.A.F. hutments in High Street, Ings Lane, Grove Lane and Cheapside, Waltham; why, after 11 weeks' delay, no answer has been given; and what steps he now proposes to take in this urgent matter.
I regret the delay in dealing with this letter from the Grimsby Rural District Council and I am going into the matter with the branch responsible. A reply has now been sent. The Royal Air Force is still using the huts in Grove Lane and Ings Lane; those in High Street and Cheapside are being held at present for other Government use, but they may be available within about eight weeks.
May I ask the Minister for what other Government use these premises are being held, and whether he realises that it does not help the people who are wanting homes to see these places left empty? Why cannot something be done?
They are being held for a most important use; there is the possibility of using them to accommodate prisoner-of-war labour for agriculture.
They have been empty a long time, and this possibility is of no use to the people who want houses.
I think labour on the land is of the utmost importance to the British people.
Mails (S.E.A.C.)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why weekly parcels and letters addressed to men serving in the R.A.F. in S.E.A.C. fail to reach the addressees; and if he will take steps to see that such parcels and letters are delivered regularly in the future.
We have had very few complaints of the actual loss of letters or parcels to S.E.A.C. But there were considerable delays in the arrival of air mail in this theatre during the last quarter of 1945. These delays have now been largely overcome. Parcels for S.E.A.C. go by sea and may take up to four months to reach the most distant destination.
Does that answer include Hong Kong, and will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the widespread dissatisfaction among Royal Air Force men in Hong Kong?
It does include Hong Kong, and it is especially there that the sea passage has recently taken up to four months.
Northolt (Sick Quarters)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what accommodation is being provided on the Northolt aerodrome for sick quarters.
Sick quarters are shortly to be provided at Northolt by adapting or extending existing buildings which can now be spared on the station.
Personnel, Malta (Families)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is able to state the arrangements made for families to join men serving in Malta.
A member of the Royal Air Force serving in Malta may apply for his family to join him on certain conditions, of which the most important are that he must have at least a further year to serve overseas and that suitable accommodation can be found there. I am afraid accommodation is the big difficulty.
In the event of an airman having accommodation for his family, is transportation found for them?
Some families have actually arrived there.
Rights of Way
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to make a statement about the continued closure of many footpaths and rights of way in the vicinity of establishments whose functions have changed since the end of the war; and whether, in the interests of ramblers and lovers of the countryside, he will arrange for as many of them as possible to be freed.
When a Royal Air Force station is closed, or flying is discontinued, we naturally see what footpaths and rights of way can be reopened, and we welcome local suggestions. These should be made in the first place to the local planning authority, who will then get in touch with us.
In the case of all future developments in the Royal Air Force, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that free and unfettered access to the country is a very important element in developing our national character?
Yes, Sir, I attach great importance to that myself.
Surplus Stores (Disposal)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that at the R.A.F. station at Lasham, Hampshire, much useful material is being destroyed by breaking up, burning or burying, to save the trouble of removing or otherwise disposing of it; whether he is satisfied that similar destruction is not being carried out at other R.A.F. stations, as they become redundant; and whether, in view of the shortage of goods of all kinds, he will give an assurance that henceforth no surplus stores or equipment shall be destroyed when aerodromes become redundant, but shall be either sold or made use of in some way.
No R.A.F. stores or equipment are destroyed if they contain material which has a further use, unless its salvage would be uneconomical. I do not think any material has been wasted at the station referred to, but I will gladly investigate further if the hon. and gallant Member would send me particulars
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been alleged by very responsible persons in that neighbourhood that such articles as large rolls of linoleum from the huts and parts of machines, and even tents, have been destroyed by burning or burying? Is he also aware that even if this is not going on now, it was going on within the last fortnight or three weeks?
We have gone into the question of burnings which caused comment locally, but we are informed that the only materials burned were entirely rotten and unfit canvas tentage and oil saturated wood from unserviceable packing cases. I do not think there was anything reprehensible in what happened.
Was the matter investigated by the Provost Marshal of the Air Force?
I shall need notice of that question.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider setting up a commission consisting of a few business men who would go round the country inspecting such stocks and, where possible, make arrangements for their sale?
These stores are realised by the Ministry of Supply.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much equipment, such as beds, bedding, spoons, forks and the like, is at the redundant aerodrome at Chipping Ongar; why this equipment has been allowed to deteriorate; how long it is since it was used; and why it has not been made available to the public.
The camp at Chipping Ongar will probably be used for other Government purposes, so we are keeping there, for the time being, a supply of beds, bedding and cutlery. This equipment was last used in September, 1945. It is held in covered storage and is inspected at regular intervals to ensure that it has not deteriorated.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an eye-witness has reported to me that this equipment has deteriorated? Is he also aware that there are 700 or 800 beds there which could be used by the public, and will he take disciplinary action against the official who is responsible for this waste of public money?
No, Sir, I cannot admit, for one moment, that these stores are deteriorating. I have had them carefully inspected, and I am assured that they are not.
Construction Equipment
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if the valuable construction equipment at present lying idle at Hatfield and other airfields will be made available, through departmental channels, for use on housing sites.
We report all our surpluses of constructional equipment to the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production for disposal. For instance, we are reporting 53 of the concrete mixers at Hatfield, and 19 excavators have already been transferred for housing work.
Airmen's Complaints, Eastern Stations (Inquiries)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can now make a statement on the recent strike of airmen at Mauripur and the events leading up to it.
For a general account of recent troubles in the Royal Air Force in the East and the events which led up to them, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As he said, the evidence available suggests that the main cause behind these events was the men's very human and natural desire to get home now the war is over. But no doubt the local situation at each particular station has often been a contributory factor. The situation at each station affected will be the subject of inquiry which will have these terms of reference:
(1) to investigate and report to the Air Council upon the recent instances of disaffection at Royal Air Force stations in Air Command, South. East Asia; (2) to examine the causes of discontent among the airmen concerned and the extent to which it was justified; (3) to determine the responsibility, both for the actual outbreaks of indiscipline, and for the circumstances which gave rise to them; (4) to make any necessary recommendations.
It has not yet been decided whether one inquiry will cover all the incidents or whether a number of inquiries will be necessary. I cannot, of course, anticipate the findings of this inquiry, or inquiries, by any expression of opinion today.
Is my hon. Friend aware that this station at Mauripur is both especially bad and especially important, as it is the bottleneck through which all traffic passes to and from India and the East? Can he say whether there has been much improvement in conditions at this place, and to what extent "de-mob-forms"—an admirable scheme in themselves—are really made available to the men?
I have talked with a very high officer who has been there recently and he is very well aware of the importance of the station and its size, and the vast works which are going on there which do add to the discomfort of everybody there very much, but I am assured that very considerable improvement has taken and is taking place.
May I ask who will conduct these inquiries? Will they be conducted by officers of the Royal Air Force, and at an appropriate time will the House be told the names of those who conduct them?
Yes, Sir. They are Service inquiries and certainly the House will be told.
Could the Under-Secretary inform the House what, in his opinion, is the difference between a strike in the Royal Air Force and a mutiny in the Army?
I do not think it very much matters what word we apply to these incidents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I do not. I think it might do a good deal of harm if the more severe word were applied. I prefer to use the words which have been used in the official Terms of Reference to the Service Inquiry, which are "the causes of discontent and indiscipline."
Will not the Under-Secretary agree that there is a very big difference between a strike of airmen acting under Service conditions, and an industrial strike in this country, and that the circumstances are quite different?
Certainly.
Will the hon. Gentleman state what will be the position of any man who becomes due for release before the investigation takes place, and will the hon. Gentleman do all in his power to get the investigations started as soon as possible?
Yes, Sir. They are starting immediately.
Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the word "strike" is not applicable to any member of His Majesty's Forces, whether Army, Navy or Air Force? The term is "mutiny" and not "strike".
The hon. and gallant Gentleman may have noticed that I did not use the word "strike."
Mr. Driberg.
Question No. 30. [ Interruption. ] Will my hon. Friend disregard that archaic nonsense and answer Question No. 30?
rose —
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to instruct another hon. Member to disregard what he calls archaic nonsense?
It is not out of Order.
On that point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member, when you call his name at Question Time, to say anything more than the number of his Question?
It is the usual thing, but the hon. Member may have been asking a supplementary to the previous Question.
Could I have an answer? Is it in Order, when you call an hon. Member's name at Question Time, to say anything but the number of his Question?
It is in Order. An hon. Member may, for instance, point out that there is an error in the Question, but frankly I object to an hon. Member taking advantage of an occasion like this to make a provocative remark.
I apologise profoundly to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if my remark was in any way provocative. I only made it because, owing to the uproar created on the other side of the House, my hon. Friend had not heard me the first time I said "Question No. 30."
rose —
I think this discussion has gone far enough.
Officers, India (Accounts)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the accounts in Britain of officers, repatriated from India, are debited with items purporting to have been incurred in India, before their last pay certificates have been received from India.
Without details of actual cases it is difficult to give a categorical reply to this Question. An item chargeable to an officer's account, such as a cash issue, might reach England before the receipt of the last pay certificate, but this would be a rare occurrence. It is due to the fact that a belated charge mighty be dealt with by a different section in the Base Accounts Office from the one transferring accounts. All items are eventually reflected in the officer's account in England.
Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very inconvenient to officers if their accounts in the United Kingdom are debited with amounts which it is quite impossible for them to examine?
Yes, Sir, I do see the difficulty. It is a most elaborate and difficult matter to get the Indian accounts into line promptly with the accounts at home, but perhaps if the hon. Gentleman would communicate with me and give me details we might be able to improve the situation.
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of officers and airmen bringing home clearance certificates with debits or credits they may have, so that when they produce the certificates they can be cleared once and for all?
That sounds most reasonable. In accounting matters I cannot, at first sight, say whether it is practical or not, but I am willing to go into it.
Azores
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the copy of a letter from an airman stationed in the Azores, forwarded to him on 21st January by the hon. Member for Maldon, and the arguments advanced therein against the continued retention at that station of over 1,000 personnel of all trades, including many building trade workers; to what extent the delay in repatriating these men is caused by their use in the development of civil aviation; and if he will take steps to secure transport for the repatriation of all those whose retention in the Azores is not essential.
Yes, Sir. I have considered the letter referred to. The Royal Air Force in the Azores have been employed on providing services—in particular, safety services—for the British and U.S. air trooping programmes with occasional assistance to civil services. This requires a self-contained organisation to keep the airfield and aircraft serviceable in difficult conditions, to run a wireless control service and to man a small hospital. Building workers employed on airfield and other maintenance comprise less than 10 per cent. of the diminishing number of men still there, and they are essential so long as the base is in use. The Air Ministry is most anxious to end its commitments at this base, and, as I have already informed my hon. Friend, we are reducing our strength as rapidly as circumstances permit. A reduction of some 20 per cent. in the establishment was effected recently, and there will be a further major cut at the beginning of March. Both air and sea transport is being used over the next few weeks to repatriate the men no longer required.
Singapore
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whether bush hats and sun glasses have yet been issued to R.A.F. personnel in Singapore.
I have sent a signal to the Command and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, what facilities for study and education exist in Singapore for the benefit of R.A.F. personnel.
I have received a report from the Command this morning. The present position is that the R.A.F. Educational Staff are helping to arrange private study. Libraries and text books which have recently arrived are already in use for this purpose. In addition, they now have accommodation for organised classes which will start in about 10 days' time.
Requisitioned Property
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, what are the prospects of the various aerodromes and properties under his control in Wem rural district, Shropshire, being released in the near future, if not in their entirety at least in part.
We have been using four airfields in the Wem Rural District—Shawbury, Tilstock, Bridleway Gate and Sleap. We shall shortly be releasing one of them, Bridleway Gate. The future of the other three is being considered as part of the general Government review of airfields. We have no other requisitioned property in the district.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he proposes to arrange a conference with the Manchester Corporation for the purpose of releasing a portion of Heaton Park for use by the public.
A conference with the Manchester Corporation is being arranged in the next few days, when a detailed scheme for re-opening parts of Heaton Park will be ready to submit to the Corporation.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether arrangements have yet been completed for the Polish Air Staff College to leave their present requisitioned accommodation at Weston-Super-Mare; and what has caused the prolonged delay in moving them.
We shall release this accommodation early in May, after the end of the present staff course. No more courses will be started.
When the Polish Air Staff leave their accommodation at Weston-Super-Mare will the Under-Secretary see that their next accommodation is somewhere in Poland?
That would be by far the best arrangement.
Redundant Airfields
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many redundant aerodromes there are in Britain; how much equipment of all kinds they contain; and will this equipment be made available to the public immediately.
Until the size of the postwar Services is determined we cannot say how many airfields in this country will eventually be redundant. The equipment on airfields has to be sorted to decide what is surplus. This is a continuous process and a useful estimate of total quantities could hardly be given at this stage. We report all our surplus stores and equipment usually to the Ministry of Supply and Aircraft Production, who are responsible for their disposal.
Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that equipment in these redundant aerodromes is used for the public service as soon as possible?
Yes, Sir. I am sure the Ministry of Supply has that object in view.
In view of the need of these aerodromes for agricultural purposes, will the hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make these aerodromes available?
There are already a number of surplus airfields being used for agricultural purposes; they are grass airfields. The position with regard to the run-wayed airfields is much more difficult because they have been spoilt for agricultural purposes.
Civil Aviation
Municipal Airports
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take over all municipal airports which, before the recent war, were scheduled as recognised airports.
As stated in Cmd. 6712, only airports required for scheduled air transport services will be acquired and managed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
How soon can the hon. Gentleman tell us which are to be so earmarked, because ratepayers and municipalities have put up a great deal of money for these places and are anxious to know what is to happen?
My Noble Friend is addressing himself to this particular problem at the moment and I hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether his reply applies to Dyce Airfield, Aberdeen?
I prefer not to make any announcement about any particular aerodrome now, as one must have repercussions on the others. I prefer to make an announcement later about the whole aerodrome position.
Radio-Telephony, Whitchurch
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will give some indication of the nature of the security reasons which prevented the use of elementary radio-telephony facilities for the flying control at Whitchurch airport.
I am informed that in order to avoid disclosure of information to the enemy, radio communications were kept to the minimum. The use of radio-telephony to civil aircraft in circumstances in which messages might be overheard by the enemy was therefore forbidden.
Is it not a fact that aircraft using this airport operated W/T; that the machines themselves had R/T which on some occasions—I have done it myself—they used to pass a message to the next aerodrome which had to pass the message by telephone to Whitchurch? And does not the answer indicate that the Ministry officials are out of touch with modern facilities?
The hon. Member is now dealing with a time long before my own Department was formed. It is a fact that the danger of communication to the enemy was less great with wireless telegraphy and with very high frequency apparatus, but no high frequency apparatus was then available for civil aircraft.
Questions
Cables and Wireless (Nationalisation)
asked the Prime Minister when the House may expect a statement or a White Paper on the proposals to nationalise cables and wireless.
It is hoped that a White Paper will be issued shortly, or that a statement will be made.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this matter will not be rushed upon the House in the same way as some of the American agreements were?
I do not admit the soft impeachment, but in so far as it has any validity, I will try to avoid that.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why cables and wireless have to be nationalised?
I should imagine that there will be quite a lot to be said about that when the moment comes.
Germany
Food Situation, British Zone
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the food position in the British zone and how far have the efforts of the Control Commission succeeded in increasing agricultural and horticultural production; and how much food and coal, and of what kinds, has been imported from the United Kingdom since September.
The British zone is not self-supporting in food, and imports are necessary to maintain even a minimum level of nutrition. The Control Commission have so far had little opportunity to increase food production: last year the enemy were still in occupation of the zone at the vital sowing period. There are serious shortages of seeds, fertilisers and implements. A comprehensive plan to increase the arable acreage has, however, been put into operation this winter.
As regards the second part of the Question, food imports from the United Kingdom in the period 1st September, 1945, to 15th January, 1946, have been 12,000 tons of flour, 11,400 tons of barley, 40,000 tons of potatoes, 465 tons of potato flour and 15,000 tons of biscuits. In addition, some 280,000 tons of wheat, and quantities of other foodstuffs of various kinds, have had to be procured on United Kingdom account from other countries in order to prevent disease and unrest. No coal was imported from the United Kingdom.
Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that very good work indeed has been done by the Allied Control Commission to increase food production, and could he put some papers in the Library to show what that work is, because every item of food grown saves exporting food from this country?
I agree that remarkably good work has been done in this direction, as in most other directions by the Allied Control authorities. Information as to the progress in these matters is already contained in the excellent publication "The British Zone Review," which is in the Library, and we hope within the course of a very short period to be able to publish a comprehensive statement of what has been achieved.
Is any food coming in from the agricultural zones of Eastern Germany which normally supplied a good deal of the British Zone's requirements?
I should like notice of that question to give a precise reply, but in general I should say that no food is coming from the Eastern zones, although certain quantities of fertilizers, etc., are being received.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the allocation of barley sent to Germany has been at the expense of the Scottish distilling industry, as a result of which valuable exports which arise from that industry will not be available to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?
Public Officials (Political Activities)
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he approved the order of 17th November, 1945, a copy of which was sent to him on 19th January, 1946, by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and which prevents all public officials, including teachers, from taking any part in political activities in Hanover Province; what was the object of the order; and whether he will arrange to withdraw it.
This instruction was a local one, issued before it had been denned how far public servants should be allowed to take part in political activities. It is being amended and the policy generally is being reviewed.
Population Transfers
asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether in view of the prevailing hard weather conditions on the Continent, the Allied Control Council have now suspended transfer of the German population from Austria. Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland into the four occupied zones of Germany in accordance with the provision of the Agreement reached on 20th November, 1945.
The transfer of German population to the British zone has not yet begun. I have no precise information about the other zones, but I understand that practically no transfers have yet been made. As agreed by the Allied Control Council, there will be no movement of population during the hard weather, except under humane conditions ensuring warmth and food.
We have heard that story before. May I ask my hon. Friend whether representations have been made to the Governments responsible—to the Czech and Russian Governments—that these expulsions should stop until the weather makes it possible to transfer people under reasonable conditions?
I do not quite understand the purport of that supplementary question, since the answer states that no transfers have taken place, precisely because of the assurances given to my hon. Friend before and of the representations that have been made.
But that is not the fact. Will my hon. Friend investigate for himself what is actually going on now? Thousands of people every day are being heaved out of their homes despite the weather conditions, and will he please make representations to the Governments concerned?
I can only repeat that no transfers have been made under the scheme to which reference is made in the Question, so far as the British zone is concerned. So far as the other zones are concerned, I understand from the information available that no substantial transfers have been taking place, and any that have taken place are relatively small. There is, on the other hand, a certain amount of uncontrollable voluntary emigration from those countries into the zones over the frontiers, and it is just impossible to stop it.
In order to help my hon. Friend, may I give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment?
Food Supplies
Standards of Quality
asked the Minister of Food when controlling prices of articles of food, what steps is he taking to ensure standards of quality.
It is my practice, before making an order to control the price of any article of food for which a standard is not already prescribed under the Food and Drugs Acts or under the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, to consider whether it is desirable in the public interest to ensure that a certain standard of quality is maintained in the case of the article in question, and if so, to prescribe provisions to that end in the relevant maximum price order. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note of the main maximum price orders which prescribe standards of quality. The note also includes the quality standards which have already been prescribed under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever his practice is, the result is that distributors get away with distributing very inferior qualities of stuff, because of the policy of the Government?
I do not understand any such statement.
The right hon. Gentleman will.
Following is the note :
(1) STANDARDS INCORPORATED IN CONTROL AND MAXIMUM PRICES ORDERS.
Order and Standard prescribed.
Bread (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1943, as amended—Fat content of flour for bread-making.
Coffee (Retail Prices) Order, 1943—Coffee content of a coffee mixture.
Fish Cakes (Maximum Prices) Order, 1943, as amended—Fish content of fish-cakes.
Soya Flour (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1943—Fat content of soya.
Low Fat Soya Products (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1943—Fat content of soya products.
Soft Drinks Order, 1943.—Acid, fruit juice and sweetening content of certain soft drinks.
Pickles and Sauces Order, 1944—Composition of tomato ketchup or catsup.
Meat Products, Canned Soups and Canned Meat (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1944, as amended—Meat content of certain meat products; solid, protein and fat content of canned soups: meat and fish content of meat and fish pastes respectively.
Flour Confectionery (Control and Maximum Prices) Order, 1944, as amended—Fat content of uncooked pastry Price of other flour confectionery related to cost of ingredients.
Fruit Pulp Order, 1944—Maximum water and preservative content.
Saccharin (Control and Maximum Prices), Order, 1944—Saccharin and water-insoluble matter contents of saccharin tablets. Saccharin and dulcin content of other sweetening tablets.
Canned Fruit and Vegetables Order, 1945, as amended—Standards of fruit and vegetable packs and for sugar and salt content of covering liquids.
Flour Order, 1945—Content of germ and other such ingredients as the Minister may from time to time prescribe.
Wherever practicable, the Orders controlling the price of fresh fruits and vegetables and of fish make provision as to the grade or quality of the fruit, vegetable or fish thereby controlled.
(2) STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY AND UNDER FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1938.
Standard prescribed.
Section 4—Alcohol content of whisky, brandy, rum and gin.
Section 32—Maximum water content of butter, margarine and milk blended butter and milk fat content of margarine.
Sale of Milk Regulations, 1939—A minimum of 3 per cent. milk fat and 8.5 per cent. milk solids is presumed.
Public Health (Condensed Milk) Regulations 1923–43—Fat and milk-solids content of condensed milk.
Public Health (Dried Milk) Regulations. 1923–43—Fat content.
(3) STANDARDS PRESCRIBED UNDER DEFENCE (SALE OF FOOD) REGULATIONS, 1943, REGULATION 2.
Food Standards (General Provisions) Order, 1944, as amended.
Food Standards (Mustard) (No. 2) Order, 1944—Proportions of brown and white mustard to be included in mustard, compound mustard and mustard condiment.
Food Standards (Self-Raising Flour) Order, 1944—Content of available carbon dioxide.
Food Standards (Shredded Suet) Order, 1944—Fat content.
Food Standards (Baking Powder and Golden Raising Powder) Order, 1944—Content of available carbon dioxide.
Food Standards (Preserves) Order, 1944—Content of fruit for jam and marmalade. Content of soluble solids for fruit curd and mincemeat, jam and marmalade.
Food Standards (Liquid Coffee Essence) Order, 1945—Caffeine content of coffee essence and coffee and chicory essence
Food Standards (Salad Cream and Mayonnaise) Order, 1945—Content of oil and egg.
Milk
asked the Minister of Food why wholesalers and wholesaler-retailers are allowed, during the school holidays, to dispose of quantities of milk normally supplied to schoolchildren, whilst ordinary retailers are not allowed to do so.
The arrangements for the disposal of milk not required for schools during holiday periods are not restricted in the manner suggested. All distributors, whether wholesalers, wholesaler-retailers, or retailers, are permitted to dispose of the milk in the same way.
Is the Minister aware that milk and its distribution is at present causing more complaints than all the other commodities which come under his administration?
I am aware that there are complaints, but I am also aware that this is the most perishable article I have to deal with, and is therefore likely to engender complaints.
What happens to milk normally supplied to schools during the school holidays, because no one in any home of which I have any experience knows what happens to it?
It is consumed.
Is it possible to have this surplus milk made into local cheese?
No, Sir. There is a need for the maximum amount of milk at all times; it is essential for the community.
asked the Minister of Food how soon he anticipates being able to make any improvement in the distribution of milk and an increase in the ration.
I am glad to say that the output of milk is rising and I hope to increase the non-priority allowance in a very short time, several weeks earlier than was possible last year. I shall make an announcement shortly. With increasing supplies and the return of roundsmen from the Services, I look forward to improvements in distribution.
Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause great satisfaction?
I am delighted.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider preventing the export of feeding stuffs so that we may have an immediate increase in the milk supply?
I give every consideration to every aspect of the problems with which I am confronted. Whatever I do I shall do in the best interests of the country.
Will the Minister, when he gives us such good news as this with regard to milk, include a tribute to the farmers who have brought about increase in the food supply?
I am not praising anybody, neither am I holding anybody blameworthy. I try to hold the scales quite evenly. The cow has something to do with it.
Oversea Gifts
asked the Minister of Food what is the total tonnage of free gifts in food received in the United Kingdom since 1939.
I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. Apart from food gifts received by individuals, a number of organisations were permitted during the war years to receive gifts of food in bulk for distribution to bombed areas, to charities, and to Allied Service personnel stationed in this country. No record is available of the quantities so received.
asked the Minister of Food what was the total tonnage of free gifts in food that lay in Plymouth between the middle of December, 1945, and the middle of January, 1946.
115 tons of gift foods arrived at Plymouth during December—approximately 70 tons from Melbourne, and 45 tons from South Africa. Of the Melbourne consignment, 23 tons had been cleared by 15th January, 50 tons by 26th January, and the remainder has either now been distributed or is in process of distribution. The 45 tons from South Africa are being distributed with the remainder of the current South African consignment, the bulk of which arrived at other ports.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these were Christmas gifts, and if so, are the recipients expected to keep them until next Christmas?
They were intended by the donors to be Christmas gifts, but owing to late shipment they did not arrive in time for Christmas. I thought I would anticipate the joys of next Christmas by circulating them as early as possible.
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the disappointment experienced by the people of Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, that the free gifts of food sent by them to the people of Britain should have been sold and for points, instead of free distribution; and if he will give an assurance that any such further gifts will be distributed free to persons most needing them.
As the reply to my hon. Friend's Question is necessarily somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement :
Gifts of food sent from overseas and intended by the donors, not for addition to normal stocks, but for free distribution in this country, are, so far as possible, distributed without charge and as addi- tions to the ration to people most in need of extra supplies. Perishable foods such as meat, bacon and butter, cannot be distributed in this way, and I took steps last autumn to make known my difficulties in this respect to organisers of gift schemes overseas.
The only practicable way in which I can deal with gifts of this kind is to distribute them through the normal rationing machinery. I fully recognise that this will not in all cases accord with the desires of the donors, and where it is their wish that I should do so, I am prepared to set aside the gross proceeds of sale of such gifts for the purchase as and when practicable of other foods which can be distributed free and as a supplement to the rations.
The gifts to which my hon. Friend refers are no doubt those which have been so generously made by the "Thanks to Britain" organisation in Southern Rhodesia, and as these consist of perishable items I am seeking the agreement of the donors to distribution under the arrangements I have indicated.
Maple Peas
asked the Minister of Food when he intends to alter the present policy whereby a high percentage of the New Zealand maple peas imported into the United Kingdom are diverted to feed pigeons instead of being used for sowing crops.
In consequence of a recent decision to continue to supply rations of national priority pigeon mixture to members of the National Pigeon Service for a further period of twelve months from February, 1946, it is essential that about 45 per cent. of our total imports of maple peas shall continue to be used for this purpose for another year. I cannot say what the policy will be thereafter.
Would it not be wiser, in the national interest, to use these peas to produce a crop for feeding cattle?
The point is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has notified me that it is desirable to maintain the pigeon lofts for another year, and I have agreed to it.
Anonymous Complaints
asked the Minister of Food how many investigations into alleged infringement of food rationing regulations originated in 1945 through the receipt of anonymous letters by his Department; and in how many of these cases were convictions obtained.
I am afraid that the information sought by the hon. and gallant Member is not available since no special record is kept of investigations which originate from anonymous complaints.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that large numbers of cases are investigated solely on the strength of anonymous letters and that that is a very odious practice? Will he instruct his officers to desist from it?
There have been letters under the guise of anonymity in which very important information has been conveyed and convictions have followed, but, in general, anonymity is not backed by me.
Meat and Nuts (Imports)
asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the imports of meat of all kinds, including poultry and game, have increased by about 14 per cent. over 5,000,000 cwts., in 1944, as compared with 1938, and their cost by about £80,000,000 or 54 per cent.; that the imports of nuts had gone down from 808,000 cwts. in 1938 to 154,000 cwts. in 1944, and their cost from £3,000,000 in 1938 to £560,000 in 1944; and, in view of their high dietetic and nutritive value, he will take steps to reduce this disparity in imports.
I am aware of the variations which have taken place as regards the volume and value of the imported supplies of these foodstuffs. None of them is available in sufficient quantity to satisfy consumer demand, but I am making every endeavour to remedy this position as quickly as possible. The decline in the import of nuts in 1944 was due to scarcity of shipping, coupled with the heavy demands of priority cargoes on the space available, and also to purchasing difficulties. Procurement difficulties have not disappeared, but every effort is being made to increase imports in the current year, and these are expected to show an improvement on the imports of 1944. There is no prospect of an early return to the level of prewar imports.
Wrapping Paper
asked the Minister of Food whether he will now authorise the release of sufficient paper to enable bakers and grocers to wrap bread and similar food which otherwise becomes contaminated.
Paper supplies are still restricted but the tonnage available for use by food distributors has been progressively increased and is now greater than at any time during the last six years. The amount of ordinary wrapping paper now available should be sufficient if used with care to enable retailers, including bakers, to wrap foods needing protective covering. There is, however, no early prospect of a sufficient improvement in the supplies of waxed paper to permit the wrapping of bread by mechanical means in the large-scale bakeries.
Is the shortage of paper in any way due to the falling off of the amount of paper recovered in salvage?
I am afraid I could not answer that. It goes, I think, to the Minister of Supply.
This is very important, so will the right hon. Gentleman investigate it?
I will convey the point to the Minister responsible.
Allocation
asked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for increased allocation of rationed foods and unrationed foods, such as manufactured meats, etc., to be supplied to the north-east to facilitate heavier demands due to demobilisation, etc.
asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of complaints in the Teesside area, including Billingham, about the allocation of food supplies; and if he will consider increasing the allocation to meet the increased population in this area.
Machinery already exists for adjusting supplies of both rationed and unrationed foods to changes in the population, both in the north-east and elsewhere and whether due to demobilisation or other causes. Some adjustments have moreover been made in the basic entitlements of manufacturers in certain towns in the north-east to take account of the amount of unemployment in that area immediately before the war.
Is the Minister aware that in certain instances in the North-East holders of emergency ration cards are refused supplies by certain traders on the grounds of inadequacy of emergency supplies?
I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Member will give me information about it I will look into it at once.
Is the Minister aware there is a food shortage all over the country?
Feeding Stuffs
asked the Minister of Food what types of feeding stuffs merchants have been instructed to hold in reserve for export, upon receipt of further instructions from his Department; to whom these feeding stuffs are being sent and in what quantities.
No instructions have been given to merchants by my Department to hold animal feeding stuffs in reserve for export. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
Are we to understand there are no feeding stuffs being exported from this country?
I did not say that. I have answered the Question, that no instructions have been given to merchants by me.
Questions
Wines and Spirits
asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider controlling the price per glass of wines, spirits, etc., where the price per bottle is already fixed, and so prevent the present profiteering
I have carefully considered this suggestion, but am afraid that it would prove impracticable.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that without control of the price of individual drinks liquor tends to be thrown on to the black market?
I am not aware of that. What I am aware of is that there is a perfect plethora of sizes of glasses now in circulation in the whole of the catering and hotel trade, and it would be a practical impossibility for me to lay down any special type of measure.
asked the Minister of Food whether he hopes to put imported wine on sale at lower prices.
I regret that there is little prospect of reduced prices of imported wines in the near future.
May I thank the Minister for his new Order stopping the sale of bogus British wine?
I have done my best.
British Restaurants
asked the Minister of Food whether, before bringing forward proposals to place British restaurants on a permanent basis, he will set up a committee of inquiry so that all the interests concerned can have an opportunity to give evidence on the subject.
Consultations on this subject are at present taking place with representative associations of local authorities, and I am prepared to consider representation from any other interests concerned, but I do not consider it necessary to set up a committee of inquiry.
Restaurants (Meat Allocation)
asked the Minister of Food on what basis meat is at present allocated to public restaurants and eating places; and what instructions have been given regarding the equitable distribution of such supplies amongst customers wishing to have meat dishes.
Meat is allocated to public restaurants and eating places on the basis of 1d. worth for each main meal served. Each establishment is free to make the best use of the supplies allocated to it, and no instructions have been given on the subject.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of restaurants, both expensive and humble, re- serve their entire fresh meat allocation for a few privileged customers, and is that the best method?
I am not aware of that, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me any information that he has on the subject, I will be willing to look into it.
Soap
asked the Minister of Food if he will allocate a larger supply of soap to the northern region as hardship is being endured by housewives due to the hard water in the area.
I am aware of the difficulties experienced by housewives in the hard water districts, but I regret that I cannot make any increase in the supply of soap until more fat is available.
Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill (Committee Stage)
May I ask the Leader of the House a question on Business, with a view to being prepared for all hypotheses, however unlikely? What are the Government's intentions in the event of their securing a Second Reading of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill? Do they propose to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House or upstairs?
Yes, Sir. We have given consideration to this and, having regard to the problems of the Parliamentary programme, we have thought it right that the Committee stage should be taken upstairs. It is, therefore, not our intention to move that the Bill should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for telling us. May I ask him to consider that the Government are now taking five days of the time of the House; that he refused to give three days for the Second Reading of this Bill, which affects every section of the community whether engaged in mining or not; and that even the Royalties Bill, the Bill dealing with coal royalties, of much less national importance than this, had its Committee stage taken on the Floor of the House? May I ask him to reconsider this situation? If he cannot, the Opposition, weak though it may be in numbers, will do all in its power to stop this method.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the intentions of the Opposition. We shall have to do our best to circumvent them. The House will, of course, realise the fact that this new procedure under the new Standing Orders, the Sessional Standing Orders, resulting from the Report of a Select Committee of this House, was made for the purpose that Bills of this kind might be sent upstairs with greater readiness. Therefore, I think we are entitled to take advantage of the new Standing Orders.
The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, bear in mind his own evidence before that Committee, and his statement that there are Measures which affect the life of the nation and every section of it. If ever there were such, surely this is such a Bill?
With great respect, I used no such phrases before the Committee. I was very careful about the language I used. I used language about important financial Measures and matters of constitutional importance. This Bill is not a Bill of either character. This is a Bill for the reorganisation of an industry. That is all. It is neither a Bill primarily of a financial character, nor of fundamental constitutional importance.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-read his evidence? It is quite true that he left the position open in respect of how far in his judgment a Bill of this nature should be regarded as raising a constitutional issue. What there can be no dispute about is that this does affect our whole national life, and I must enter the most vigorous protest against Parliament not having the fullest opportunity of debating it.
If ever there was a Bill that does raise a great constitutional change in the position of hundreds of thousands of our people, then it is this Bill. It was understood that things which directly affected the lives of a large number of people in this way should be taken on the Floor of the House. Is it really right that in a matter of this kind many constituencies—hundreds of constituencies—will be completely unable to put their point of view?
The whole doctrine about the new procedure which we adopted in this House was as I have indicated, and we made it perfectly clear that we did not accept the doctrine that important Bills that affect all sections of the community should necessarily be taken on the Floor. We said the Government should exercise their judgment as these things came along; but I did say that fundamental, substantial financial Bills, or Bills of fundamental constitutional importance, were in a special category. But merely because everybody uses coal—it will still be coal when it comes from my right hon. Friend's coalmines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will it?"]—and it will still look much the same—does not make this a matter of constitutional significance. This is a Bill about the best way to run the coalmines. That is all.
On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, if it would be possible to double the size of the Standing Committee, in order to ensure that as many as possible in this House, representing as many constituencies as possible, shall have an opportunity to take part in the Debate?
I do not remember what is the number of the Committee, but I think that it would be impossible to go beyond the number already laid down by Resolution of the House.
Since it is impossible under the Rules of Order to discuss whether or not this is a constitutional Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the last or last but one of his utterances in which he said that the whole doctrine, referring to the Select Committee on the Rules of Procedure, was that Bills of this sort were not constitutional? He gave the impression that that was the whole doctrine of the Committee; whereas it is certainly a fact that a large section of that Committee and a large section of this House believe that an economic Bill, if of sufficient importance and scope, must be ipso facto a Bill of great constitutional importance. This is most notably a Bill of that sort, and I should have thought that would have appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are the heads of 50 years of preaching that the Constitution is a mere shadow of economics.
I could discuss that, but that would lead me into the doctrines of Karl Marx. With great respect, I would say that the hon. Gentleman's argument is not a constitutional argument at all. It is a party, political argument, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution. The transformation of a capitalist industry into a Socialist industry is outside the whole fundamental Constitution of the State. This is an argument about how best to get a living, and has nothing to do with the British Constitution.
May I remind the House of the incident in the year 1944, when the Joint Ecclesiastical Committee referred to the House—
The hon. Gentleman must ask a question and not remind the House.
I had meant to begin by asking whether you remember, Mr. Speaker, but I thought afterwards that that was not fair. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he remembers that in 1944 the Ecclesiastical Committee drew the attention of the House to a Measure for rebuilding churches on different sites to those on which they had been bombed, on the grounds that the Whole House ought to consider this because it affected the constitutional rights of very many of His Majesty's subjects? It cannot be denied that a Bill of this sort affects the constitutional rights on an infinitely greater scale.
I am very sorry, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not remember anything about that at all.
If it is part of the argument that because a Bill affects all constituencies and all consumers, therefore it must be taken on the Floor of the House on Committee stage, would not a comparable case be that of the Water Bill, passed in the last Parliament, which was taken upstairs?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I do not wish to hurry the House, but we have a lot of speeches and business to get through. I do not want to stop Members unduly.
May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to employ the Guillotine?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the newspapers cannot possibly cover the ordinary events of the House and also those of a Standing Committee?—[HON MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—The reason is because of the decree of the President of the Board of Trade that the newspapers shall not have enough newsprint. I am not trying to make a Party matter of this. Therefore, does not the Leader of the House realise that the public will not be able to follow the very important developments of this Debate unless it is taken on the Floor of the House? Will he then take into account that the Government will appear to be trying to hush up and prevent discussion of this important Measure?
I am sorry about that. It is of course for the newspapers to assess news values on these matters as they think right in relation to the importance of the news; but I would be very surprised if I did not read something in the "Recorder" about this before long.
I do not wish to press this matter unduly, except to ask the Government to reconsider this question. They are giving inadequate time on Second Reading, and we shall be gagged in Committee on a Measure which has not been properly discussed.
Business of the House
Proceedings in Committee on the Coal Industry Nationalisation [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]
Orders of the Day
Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question (29 th January ), "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[ Mr. Shinwell. ]
Question again proposed.
3.28 p.m.
Since I first came into this House I have been present on many occasions when the coal industry has been debated, and in recent years I have had to take part in a good many of those Debates. Whatever the nature of this Bill may be, no one can deny that it is one of the most important Bills that has ever been presented to this House. Not only is it the first occasion upon which nationalisation proposals with regard to a major industry have been put in the form of a Bill, but it is a Bill affecting an industry upon which the whole prosperity of this country is based. The decision taken on this Bill is bound to have a profound effect upon the life of the people.
Different people have different ideas on what is meant by nationalisation. I remember, some 20 years ago, a Bill being introduced into this House called the Nationalisation of Mines Bill. It was introduced by a Private Member, but the then Secretary of Mines—curiously enough the present Minister of Fuel and Power—commended that Bill to the House. Whatever might have been said for that Bill, it certainly was not a Bill to give the mines of this country to the nation, but to give the mines to the miners. I often wonder if many of the people who have consistently supported this policy have not had such an idea at the back of their minds. The majority of the people in this country know very little of this industry. They have a vague idea that it is a risky and unpleasant occupation, and that the people engaged in it must be extremely difficult people, because they are always having a row about something, and their view is, in effect, "We are fed up with the whole business. Let us take it over and have done with it." May I suggest that that is not the best approach to a settlement of this question? I am afraid quite a number of people hold that view and they are not confined to one party. I remember a friend of mine in this House saying to me, after listening to a Debate on coal some years ago, "Whenever I listen to a speech by a mineowner I am in favour of nationalisation. When I listen to a speech by a miner, I am in favour of private enterprise."
As far as I am concerned I have never held any considered, preconceived views on whether nationalisation is a right policy or not. I have never believed that all nationalisation is bad; I have certainly never believed that all private enterprise is good. There is sufficient evidence in this country and elsewhere to show that neither statement is accurate. For instance, many people today who believed in unrestricted private enterprise have come to regard some measure of control as vital. We see that in many Acts that have been passed in this House, extending controls and conditions in mines, in factories and, of course, with regard to health, pensions, unemployment benefit and so on. There are many people who believe in private enterprise, but who do not believe in uncontrolled private enterprise. I approach this problem without any prejudices one way or the other. I do not believe that the solution of this problem of necessity lies in applying the one or the other method, but I always say this: If it can be shown that the only way to solve this serious problem is nationalisation, then I would readily accept it.
May I say that I think the Government's approach to this question is not the right one? Instead of first ascertaining the facts and the cause of the position today and then applying the remedies, they seem to me to approach it from this point of view: "Whether it can be proved that ownership is responsible or not for the conditions in the industry, whatever remedy we propose must be based on nationalisation." I should like, before coming to the Bill, to say a word if I may about my own reaction to this industry, coming as I did into contact with it for the first time some years ago. I said a minute ago that I approached this question without any prejudice. That is not really quite true. I did have a prejudice and it was in favour of the miner. I always felt that, considering the arduous nature of his task, he never had had quite a fair deal, and when I was appointed to the Ministry of Fuel and Power the first thing I did was to make contact as much as I could, with those engaged in the industry—owners, management and men. I am bound to say that the first impression created upon my mind was that the relations existing between employers and employed in this industry were such, in some places, as I did not believe existed in any industry in this country at the present day. The next thing that struck me was the reluctance of the men to go into this industry at all and I was very much struck one day, when speaking to a large assembly of miners in a mining district, where most of the recruits come from, to see only one man, out of 200 or 300, putting up his hand when one of the speakers said "Hands up, those in this room who have their sons in the pit."
That struck me as a very ominous sign, knowing as we all know that the wastage has been far greater than the intake in this industry. I gathered it was not so much the nature of the work that was distasteful; it was the remuneration and the conditions under which these men worked and the tremendous and terrible uncertainty and insecurity which have followed this industry for so long. The first step I thought necessary, after awards had been made by the various tribunals was, in order to try to remove some of this insecurity, to get the Government to give a pledge that the wages which had been attained through the awards of the tribunals should be consolidated and stabilised for a considerable period of time. That is why I negotiated the agreement that still has two years to run. The next problem was, in my opinion, how to maintain those standards, without hurting the consumers, and without hurting our export trade. Both these were very important items as will be seen when one considers that, as a result of these awards, the pit-head price was double what it was before the war and our export trade, which in 1913 was over about half that figure and is now almost negligible. By the time these agreements were negotiated, that export trade was practically negligible and, indeed, apart from that, we were not supplying enough coal for the ordinary needs of our people at home. The problem was how to maintain that standard and it was obvious if it were to be done at all, it could only be done by increased efficiency in the mining industry. I, therefore, appointed the Reid Committee. They issued a Report and I hope the Minister of Fuel and Power has read it. I put that to him, and in all seriousness, because the last time I heard him speak in this House at the beginning of the year, he said that all reports bored him stiff. I hope he has got rid of this boredom now because this report is an extremely important one.
The right hon. Gentleman could not get bored with them if he did not read them.
I took it for granted that this report was the same to him as the others. There was an indication that he and somebody else had read it and I hope he keeps a copy of it near him, because it is the most remarkable report that has been issued in connection with the industry. The seven people who signed that report were all what one might call owners' men and they were not afraid to show where there were deficiencies. I think they are to be congratulated on the efficiency with which it was produced, and on their courage in pointing out, in many cases, where they were off the path. I do not propose to go into the report in detail, because that would be taking up too much time. Suffice it is to say that the task which they outlined as necessary to put this industry on its feet was, to put it mildly, a gigantic and formidable task, but they had no doubt at all in their minds that it was a task we could accomplish. The most significant passage—to which the Minister referred in his speech yesterday—was the last phrase of the report, "There is no time to be lost." That is nearly a year ago, and I should like very much to know what has been done to start putting some of these recommendations into operation.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had six months and he did nothing in that time.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is such an authority on coal, that I had surveys made of every region in this country, which was an essential preliminary to putting any of these recommendations into effect. They were all completed before I left office, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at them, as well as the report. I do not know how long it took to prepare this Bill, but it will not get much coal. Nothing has been done but to prepare this Bill, so far as I can see; if anything has been done, I should like to hear what it is. Why could not we have gone on at least until the agreement came to an end, and put these recommendations into effect? We would not have had results by now, of course, but a start has to be made sooner or later. I would like to have seen a start made and then, if it was found that nothing could be done without this Bill—and I doubt it very much—there is no reason why the Bill should not have been prepared.
It is said that the psychological effect of nationalising the mines is worth having. I can confess that at times I myself thought there was something in that, but I do not think so much of it today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am giving the facts. I do not think so much of it today, because the effect observable since this Bill was brought forward, has not been encouraging from that point of view. Despite the care with which figures are put out, nothing can disguise the fact that output, on a comparable basis for last year, is still seriously down. There is no sign of improvement; the decline continues. Voluntary absenteeism is up very seriously and, as the Minister said in a speech the other day, unofficial strikes are still very frequent; indeed, they are almost chronic. I could not help thinking that I had inadvertently left notes of some of my speeches behind at the Ministry, and that the right hon. Gentleman had got hold of them. I see little change despite what was promised at that time. His remarks bore a singular resemblance to some of the things I have said myself.
I have always felt that too much stress is laid on ownership and too little on reorganisation. "Nationalisation is a magic word, and no doubt thousands of people believe that the cure for the present situation lies in the word. I want to ask Members opposite, who know a good deal more about the mines than I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am prepared to admit that, but while I was at the Ministry I learnt a good deal and some of those who take part in these discussions might have known more than they do if they had taken the trouble to find out. I am talking about the psychological effect on the miner. On the date when the State takes over the mines what will the effect on him be. He will go to the same pit and get the same lamp from the same man; he will go into the same cage, will probably be lowered by the same man, and, when he gets to the bottom, he will, if he is in certain parts of the country, see the same expression on the face of the pony. He will see the same manager, the same deputy, the old roadway, the same coalface, and, on the Friday, he will probably be paid by the same man. But because the boss is different, it is said, it will make all the difference. I thought that one of the difficulties in private industry was that the boss was so remote, but here you are getting one who will be much more remote, and I am not at all sure that he will be quite as good as the previous boss. The boss under this Bill is here. Most of the people in this House represent the interests of the State as a whole, and I am not at all sure from the miners' point of view it is a good "swop."
The first criticism I have to make of the Bill is this: It states that the coalfields are to be run by a Board, but there is nothing in the Bill which indicates that there are to be district organisations, although I gathered from the Minister yesterday that he may have that in mind. I would like to stress that it will be impossible to run this industry by a National Board. It is not like the railways or the Post Office. Districts vary not only with regard to conditions but, even more important, with regard to custom. That is very important when you are dealing with an industry of this sort. There are mines of all descriptions. I believe there are about 400 which employ fewer than 20 men. So, as I say, it is impossible to deal with this industry on a national basis. It must be dealt with on a district basis. I am certain that there will be better understanding and speedier organisation if reorganisation is carried into the regions, rather than if it is done at the top by one or two people.
A more serious criticism of the Bill is in regard to the powers of the Board. There has been a great deal of talk about running the industry on business lines and methods. As a simple minded person I would like to put this to the Minister: I can never understand the reason advanced for the State taking over industries because they are inefficient, and then to reassure everybody, announcing that they will be run as business concerns. In other words, you are getting another set of business people to do what others were said to be incapable of doing. The Minister has given the impression that the Board will have full powers to run this industry. Does he honestly think that that is so? The Minister, by Clause 25, can make advances to the Board, but by Clause 3—and this is a very important point—in the framing of programmes of reorganisation and development involving a substantial outlay on capital account the Board shall— "sticky" about coming forward with the goods. The Minister of Fuel and Power himself takes that view. Last year he told us that no nationalised industry could be run by the Civil Service. I do not agree; the Civil Service is bound to come into this matter because of the amounts of money involved. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that when he was Secretary of Mines he had wonderful ideas about all sorts of things—which I can well believe. He said he had to get consent of the President of the Board of Trade, but that nothing was done. He also said that he wanted to revive the Fuel Research Board—a very good idea—and that he wanted £30,000, not £3,000,000. He said that he went to the Treasury who said, "No," and, he added, "as is customary with the Treasury."
We got it.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had had to go to the Treasury and he said, "As is customary, they said, 'No'." I do not know whether the Treasury are like the diplomats who say "No," when they mean "Yes." The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to be in charge of finance if he is to finance industries. There is another danger in Clause 28. It states:
"Any excess of the Board's revenues for any financial year over their expenditure"—
and I fancy that that is fairly remote—
"… shall be applied by the Board in such manner as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct."
The Prime Minister the other day in a written reply to a Question, stated that the object of nationalising industries was to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible cost, rather than make a profit for the Exchequer. That has not been the experience of this country up to now. Whatever the party Chancellors belong to, they do not alter a great deal in their habits. One of the most deplorable things about Chancellors is that they are always short of money. Let me take two instances, on the basis of that suggestion by the Prime Minister. Is anybody in the House satisfied that the Post Office offers the best possible service at the lowest possible cost?
Before the war I should say, "Yes, undoubtedly," but now the charges of the Post Office are imposed to raise revenue.
I am much obliged for that interruption; it is the point I was trying to make. The purpose of not giving the best possible service at the lowest possible price is to raise revenue. Apart from the war, I think something like £12,000,000 per annum was extracted by the Chancellor from the Post Office. Is there anybody who would deny that the Post Office could provide better conditions and better service if that money was available to them?
Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman contend that the public would be better served if the Post Office were transferred to private ownership?
I think hon. Members ought to try to follow my argument. [ Laughter. ] It is easy enough to laugh, but I beg of them to try to take this in. I was not arguing about private enterprise or nationalisation; I was saying that all Chancellors are always "broke," and that any sources of revenue which they can collect they will take. The Prime Minister, as I said, told us the other day that rather than run an industry for profit to the Exchequer the Government would use the money to provide the best possible service at the lowest cost. I am arguing that you do not get that when the Chancellor takes money for revenue purposes out of the Post Office.
But this is a Socialist Chancellor.
Whatever the party, Chancellors always remain the same. Let me refer to the Road Fund. I regret to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was the first bad man in this respect, but I would point out that no subsequent Chancellor, including Socialist Chancellors, altered what he did. There was a large sum of money to be spent on roads—£200,000,000 to £300,000,000. Nobody can say that the roads of this country today are adequate or safe. Yet millions are taken out of this Fund, entirely for revenue. By this Bill no moneys can be utilised except with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that there is a serious danger that in times of stress developments that are urgent for the coal industry will be held up.
What is the position of the Minister with regard to wages and other negotiations? The Board are supposed to be the employer, and I assume that when it comes to national conciliatory machinery the Board will represent the owners of today. The decision of that machine is final, and should be accepted by both sides, but by Clause 3 the Minister can override a decision of the Board if he thinks it is fit to do so in the national interest. But the more industries that are nationalised in this country the more political pressure there will be in this House. The Government are now coming to railways, road transport, electricity and gas. There is, in this House, a most powerful representation of the mining industry. Nobody can deny that the power of that body is out of all proportion to its representation in the country. The Minister knows it better than I do. I am genuinely worried about all these other industries being nationalised. We want to get these industries out of politics. Politics have done their best to kill the mining industry in the past. The fault has not all been on one side. The very best politicians I have come across on both sides have been concerned. But the fact is that there is a danger of getting a collection of delegates in this House. I see that the doctors were talking the other day about getting Members here. So it will go on. It is within the bounds of possibility that if the Board refuses a demand the Minister will have pressure put upon him which he will not be able to withstand.
I have heard from the Lord President of the Council and from the Minister talk about running the coal industry on business lines. Let me examine that. I am here today as a representative of the shareholders to be; we all are. It is our duty to give the right advice to our shareholders, who would be asked, in normal circumstances, to invest their money in this undertaking. Here we have the old firm under entirely new management. I have to advise the shareholders. Here is the prospectus. There is no mention of the amount of capital that is wanted—none at all—and this is rather an important thing for the people who are going to subscribe. There is no estimate of the profit—another fairly important thing—and, curiously enough, there is no indication of who is to be the chairman of the board of directors. There is no mention even of a director. The only thing I can find in this prospectus which leaves no shadow of doubt is who is to be the political adviser of the board. I can see nothing else in the Bill which would make me recommend it to people who, after all, are to be the shareholders in this industry whether they like it or not. [ Interruption. ] The fact remains that all of us sitting here today are their representatives.
Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, I have approached this matter without prejudice one way or the other. [ Interruption. ] I think those who know me best will accept that remark as being the truth. I have never expressed any prejudice in this matter one way or the other. All I am concerned with is this. The only test seems to me to be whether it is along these lines that we can accomplish this tremendous task which we all admit is necessary. I have done my best to examine this Bill closely. I paid very great attention to all that was said by supporters of the Bill yesterday, and I am bound to say that, neither by the proposals in the Bill itself, nor by the speeches that have been made, have I been convinced that it is in this way that we shall achieve the end which we all desire.
4.3 p.m.
I should like, in the first place, to offer my congratulations to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on his maiden speech from the Conservative Front Bench. I expected that he would have been more constructive, and would have made some suggestions for solving this problem of the mining industry, especially in view of his experience at the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman began by telling the House what he did when he went into the Ministry. He told us that one of the first things he did was to arrange for a survey of the British coalfields. I think he was trying to give the House the impression that the survey he ordered was a survey of the operational control or the operations of the industry. The fact is that the survey was only a geological survey, to ascertain the coal resources of the country. I submit to the House that it did not help very much to solve the immediate problem of the shortage of coal. I admit that the survey was necessary before carrying out any long-term plan for working the mines of this country, but it did not serve any purpose in dealing with the immediate problem. The best thing that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ever did, and almost the only thing he ever did at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, was to set up the Reid Committee, and the report of that Committee has been accepted by all parties in the House, including Members on the benches on this side.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to ask what we had done since we came into the Ministry to put the Reid Report into operation. In the same breath he said that it would be a long time before the Reid proposals could be put into operation. We have been in the Ministry only for six months, and surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that any of the fundamental proposals in the Reid Report could possibly have been put into operation in that short period. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the Reid Committee, Sir Charles Reid himself, admits that in order to put those proposals into operation some drastic preliminary reorganisation would be required in this country. The present Bill puts before the House the proposals of the Government to take over the industry in order that we may bring about that drastic reorganisation. Without public ownership and State control it is not possible to put the Reid Report into effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Unless that is so, why is it that the proposals which are contained in the Reid Report, and the proposals which were made in the Foot Report, were not made many years ago in order to prevent the industry from drifting into its present position? As a matter of fact, the Foot Report and the Reid Report are 20 years too late, and the Foot Report is the death-bed repentance of the mine-owners. They have allowed this industry to drift into its present position. Now we are faced with the problem of reorganising it from top to bottom.
Before I came into this House, I was present at a meeting to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman came to make a speech to representatives of workmen in the industry and representatives of the coal owners, and I was satisfied at that time—and it has been confirmed since I came into office—that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman never understood the industry and never understood the miners. Otherwise, he would have been able to prescribe remedies for dealing with the immediate problems. Instead, since we came into the Ministry we have not found any constructive suggestion or any constructive policy which had been put forward prior to our arrival.
I challenge that remark absolutely. A great deal of work had been done on the basis of the Reid Report and if the hon. Gentleman will look in the archives of the Ministry he will find proof of this.
I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that whatever he did when he was at the Ministry we know all about it and it is as the result of knowing what he did that we found out what he had not done. In speaking in support of the Bill in this Debate today I feel that hon. Members will agree that I am qualified to do so. Having worked underground for 30 years.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I started in the pit at 12 years of age. My schooldays did not end in a college. They ended in an elementary school at 12 years of age. In addition to that, I have had 14 years' experience as a miners' official in trying to adjust grievances and difficulties arising among the men, the mineowners and the mine management. My experience since I left the elementary school has been underground, and in my relationship with the mining industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with the Bill."] Yesterday, I sat through the whole Debate. [ Interruption. ] Never mind them. They will get their medicine before I have finished. I was saying that I sat throughout the whole of yesterday's Debate and waited for the big attack which was to be made by the Tory Party, and which had been heralded in the Press for weeks. The great attack which was to be made upon the Bill did not materialise. It proved to be nothing more than a damp squib. The great speech which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Fuel and Power made from this Box yesterday left the acting Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), completely paralysed and demoralised.
I have not recovered yet.
There is many a true word spoken in jest. The subsequent speeches from hon. Members opposite were just a collection of Committee points. No attack was made upon the principle of the Bill and no alternative was put forward for which any support could be found from either the Foot or the Reid Report. I trust that the Tory Party today will come up to scratch and do better. Otherwise they may lose their reputation as the enemies of the miners and of social progress. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said that the real test under nationalisation would be whether the people got more and cheaper coal, but that is not the only test and it is not the only reason for the nationalisation of this great industry. The fact is that when production of coal has been at its highest and cheapest, the social and economic conditions of those who worked in the industry and of their families have been at their worst. Active poverty and unemployment have been their lot. That has been due to the way in which the industry has been carried on under private ownership.
The industry has been run with almost reckless disregard for the future of the industry and for the health, safety and welfare of those who work in it. I leave out of account the despoiling of the area in which operations have taken place. Large and ugly dirt heaps and large areas of land under water have been left, and there has been great damage to property. The history of the mining industry is as black as the coal itself. To adapt a phrase which the Leader of the Opposition himself used some time ago—he is not now in the battle but is somewhere else—this great industry has been built up on the blood, sweat and tears of miners and their families. Therefore, our primary consideration is the social and economic welfare of the miners and their families. The basis of the legislation of the present Government is the achievement of the highest possible standard of life for the whole community, not wealth and riches for the few.
I propose now to deal with one or two questions which were raised in the Debate yesterday. I would say in passing that there was so little opposition to the principle of the Bill, and so few points made by hon. Members opposite, that I have had great difficulty in finding any argument to refer to in speaking this afternoon. However, I propose to deal with one or two points which were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked us whether the Board would have power to negotiate with the organised mineworkers for a supplementary scheme of workmen's compensation, in addition to the provisions of the Industrial Injuries Bill. The answer to that is that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Board from discussing the matter with the organised mineworkers, or discussing any question affecting the welfare of the miners themselves—
I would like to take up that point again. Does my hon. Friend's answer mean—
I have not finished—if the Board were approached by the National Union of Mineworkers, although before any final agreement could be arrived at it would have to be considered by Ministers.
May we take it that any mineworker displaced would come under the same arrangement?
That is another matter entirely.
It is a very important point.
I will answer it. My hon. Friend asks whether there would be power in the hands of the Board to negotiate on how displaced mineworkers were to be treated. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the organised mineworkers from approaching the Board and negotiating on or discussing this problem with them, should it arise. The Board would be good employers. The mineworkers would not be approaching an employer under private enterprise but a Board who were servants of the State. The mineworkers would have the sympathy of that Board in that connection
Questions relating to mining subsidence were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) who quite rightly pointed out that there is no mention in the Bill of damage due to mining subsidence. That is quite true. That question has been deliberately left out of the Bill, for reasons of which my hon. Friend is aware. He knows that in thousands of cases no compensation has been paid under the present operation of the mines for damage due to subsidence and he knows that the problem is very involved. Not only does it raise problems of compensation but problems of finding exactly who has been responsible for the subsidence. Years elapse before mining subsidence becomes so damaging as to affect property. I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter is very important and requires attention, but the Government feel that it is not a question to put into the Bill but is one requiring special legislation because of the difficulties involved.
The Bill already takes over commitments already entered into by the colliery companies. What would be irrelevant or inappropriate in a Clause to the effect that as the coal will now be operated by the State, the State will accept responsibility for any damage to property due to subsidence resulting from mining operations?
That is a good argument, and a good point that could be put forward for its being included in the Bill, but there are equally effective arguments which could be used on this side, when one is in possession of the data in connection with this problem. I assure my hon. Friend, without spending much time, that the problem can be more effectively dealt with by special legislation than under this Bill.
There was a lot of talk yesterday about more coal, and hon. Members on the other side of the House, whenever coal was mentioned on this side, interjected "When are we going to get it?" That is what we are discussing today—how to get it and how to get the maximum quantity. All those who have taken any interest at all in the industry, and are in possession of the facts, will know the reasons why coal is in short supply at the present time. If some hon. Members opposite had had the experience of getting coal, they would have a clearer and better understanding of the reason for the shortage and a more sympathetic understanding of the industry and its problems. What did we find when we came into the Ministry? The position was absolutely deplorable. Stocks were low, production still falling, and man-power decreasing rapidly.
I will give to the House a few facts in this connection. This is the position we found when we came into the Ministry: From the time the first planning was done for the 1945–46 coal year, it was clear that the outlook was critical. Stocks were at a very low level at the end of the 1944–45 coal year, and most of the reserves and stocks from Government dumps had been drawn upon. Without any allowance for building up stocks to a safe level, the original budget for the 1945–46 coal year, made in March, 1945, showed a deficit of 4,000,000 tons. By August, the month when we came into the Ministry, this deficit had increased to 8,000,000 tons. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman left us with a legacy of a deficit of 8,000,000 tons on the estimate. There was a loss of production due to VE and VJ holidays and although it was foreseen it was impossible to make specific allowance for it.
On the question of stocks, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we that when there is a shortage of supplies we must draw from stocks. That is elementary. The result is that stocks are reduced, affecting gas, electricity and so on. In respect of gas-works we had only 2.5 weeks' supply at the end of August, 1945, as compared with 5.3 weeks' supply at the end of August, 1944. Stocks at that level created an appalling prospect for the winter, and special steps were taken to divert all available coal into the flow of supplies for gas-works. By mid-November, we were able to build up stocks to the point of four weeks' supply as against 2.5 weeks. This did not relieve us of keen anxiety, but at least the gas-works were not facing any impending crisis. That was the position of stocks and production when we entered the Ministry, and no one is more aware of that position than the late Minister of Fuel and Power. He should not, therefore, in any way suggest that more could have been done than has been done during the time that we have been in the Ministry.
I have never criticised the hon. Gentleman.
If it was not done by actual words; it was done by implication.
Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House how he succeeded in building up the stocks? Was it by increased production, or by reducing the amount of coal available to the ordinary population?
Better organisation played its part in building up the stocks. The Minister took immediate steps for a survey of the organisation of supply and production, so that we were able to divert more coal to the gas industry. No one knows better than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that, in the circumstances, that had to be done.
If coal is diverted, it must be diverted from somewhere. May I ask the hon. Gentleman from where?
In order to reply satisfactorily, one would have to give a resumé of the steps taken in more than one direction. Therefore I could not give a simple reply. It was, however, partly because of the more efficient use of fuel that we were able to use coal available to better advantage. In a word, we had to do the best we could with the supplies available, and to use them as efficiently as possible. As a matter of fact, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the late Minister of Fuel and Power, set up the Fuel Efficiency Department of the Ministry for that purpose. The information which I have given concerning stocks and supplies is an explanation of the campaign which was started in order to achieve the 8,000,000 tons target. I have already stated that at the beginning of August, 1945, we were 8,000,000 tons behind the estimate.
I do not propose to deal very much with the target. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I take it that the cheers suggest that hon. Members opposite want me to deal with it. If that is the case, all I can say in connection with the target set up by the Minister is that while we have not succeeded in reaching that target figure, and may not succeed by the end of the period which has been fixed, yet before the Christmas holidays we had increased the estimates by over 500,000 tons, and we had that in hand when the Christmas and New Year holidays came along, which entirely absorbed that production and left us with a slight deficit. Since those holidays we have again started to build up a surplus, and we are confident that if we can maintain the present manpower in the pits, at least we shall succeed in getting some portion of that 8,000,000 tons. We are hoping that will be realised because it is in the interests of the community.
I would like to say a word or two about the manpower in the industry because that is, after all, the real problem at this stage. This is the position as we found it. We found that the manpower was declining steadily from March of this year, when it was 718,000. Until mid-November the manpower attached to the industry was held at a level just below 700,000. With men returning from the Forces, and with a temporary increase in the number of ex-miners from other industries, we expect to hold this level until the coal year (April 1946). There are many reasons for that decline in manpower with which I do not intend to deal in detail, but one outstanding fact should be known to the House: there is a wastage of 75,000 men a year in this industry, and the recruits or the entrance of youths into the industry is not meeting 50 per cent. of that wastage. No industry dependent on manpower can have such drastic reduction and carry on, but I can safely say that despite the reduction in the number of men working in the industry, we have been able comparatively to maintain our position, and we hope to improve upon it in the not far distant future.
Some people talk as if the demand for nationalisation is something which has just been brought forward by the Labour Party, or has been born in the mind of some revolutionary spirit, and that we want the nationalisation? of the mines simply for some particular section of the community. It is absurd for any hon. Member of this House to make that suggestion. We advocate the nationalisation of the mines in the interests of the whole of the community and not for a section. The demand for the nationalisation of the mining industry has been born out of almost a century of struggle between the miners and the mineowners for a decent standard of life, with the result that bitterness has entered the soul of the miner and he is now determined that this struggle must end by a change in the ownership of the industry. It can only end in this way because the bitterness which is in the soul of the miner makes it impossible to reconcile his struggle with the interests of a privately-owned industry. The miner has made up his mind about this, and so did the electors at the last General Election.
Condemnation of the present organisation of the industry has been accepted by all parties, even by the mineowners themselves by their acceptance of the Reports of Mr. Robert Foot and the Reid Committee. Mr. Foot was appointed by the Mining Association, so the Mining Association and the mineowners have accepted the principle that there should be drastic reorganisation of the industry. As I have said, the Foot Report is the death bed repentance of the mineowners. Unless something is done, and done quickly, we shall be facing a major crisis in this industry. If, when hon. Members opposite speak, either at the Box or on the benches, instead of laughing at what may be said from this Box, they will make some constructive suggestions which may be put into operation immediately, in order to increase the production of coal, they will be welcomed by the Government and by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I have such knowledge of this industry, however, that I cannot for a moment visualise that any hon. Members on that side of the House can put forward practical suggestions for solving these problems. It is only those who are employed or engaged in the industry, from the managerial side to the man at the coal face, who know the cause of these difficulties and can put forward suggestions and remedies for dealing with these problems.
As I have already said, the wastage of manpower is serious—75,000 a year. There is nobody who wants to work in the mines. What a monument to private enterprise in this industry. Not even the miners themselves, who have been tied to the pits during the present form of national control, want to work in the mines. Had they not been tied to their jobs, there would be very few men indeed in the mining industry, and yet coal is the basic commodity on which the whole of our prosperity and our very lives depend. What is the trouble? The trouble is the layout and the working of the mines which has been based on the use of manpower, not on machinery, and based on manpower when it was cheap and in good supply. When poverty and unemployment were the recruiting sergeants and were used, as in 1926 and in other lock-outs, to batter down the standard of life of the miner because the Conservative outlook at any time is that you can only be prosperous in any industry provided you can produce the maximum commodities and find a market where you can get rid of them. The motive for producing coal, so far as the private ownership of the industry is concerned, is not just to produce it for the community but to make profits for those who own the industry.
We intend to change that basis and that motive so far as this industry is concerned. Lack of planning, the use of out-of-date technical equipment, and the fratricidal competition amongst the owners themselves has brought the industry to its present position. No charge can be laid against the miners that in the past 25 years, or even in the past half century, they have in any way been responsible for the present state of the mining industry; it has been entirely due to those who own the industry, to the way in which they have carried it on, and to the way in which they have planned their mines during the whole of that time. Most of the pits today still rely on manpower. When hon. Members talk about mechanising mines, do they know what they are talking about?
Do they not know that 90 per cent. of the pits today are almost entirely dependent upon manpower? In the roadways, the seam and the coal face, which may be anything from a mile to two miles or two and a half miles from the pit shaft the coal has to be transported on an antiquated haulage system and even on the surface the plant is inadequate and the shafts obsolete. Winding engines are 50 or 60 years old, and it is time that they were scrapped and replaced by more modern winding engines. Is it not realised that it is impossible to mechanise the large majority of these pits and that millions of pounds would be required to widen shafts and modernise surface plant and haulage roads to make them large enough to get the output?
Those who talk about mechanisation, and do not know the problem, think that if the pits are mechanised and coal is got by machinery and loaded by machinery one can do without hand labour at the face. It is the most ridiculous, fantastic, argu- ment that one could imagine. Anyone who has worked in the industry knows that the solution of this problem is not solely mechanisation of the pits but also a question of manpower. Work in the pits is drawing out the men's life blood every day that they go down and machines could be made to do the work, but there are not enough available. The long-term policy is one of sinking new shafts which will be big enough to enable the output to be drawn up. Modern equipment is needed on the surface and the latest and most up-to-date equipment is needed in the underground workings and in the haulage roads. That is the only way in which the problem can be solved, but it will take years and when the Board is set up immediate results cannot be expected from whatever plans are put into operation. The Board might try to bring some pits into a more up-to-date condition, but they will not be able very seriously to affect the rate of production unless they can have adequate manpower to do the donkey work which has been done by hand for many years and which ought to have been done by machinery.
It can only be accomplished by a unified industry under State ownership and control. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) put forward the brilliant suggestion yesterday, that we should divide the coalfields into two, and have half under private ownership and half under State control. Then the competitive principle would apply, and the State would be kept up to the mark. There was no suggestion that the State pits might keep the private pits up to the mark. Anyone who knows the coalfields and their geological conditions, which vary from pit to pit, knows that there are coalfields with low producing capacity, not because of any lack of technical efficiency on the part of the management or men underground, but because of the geological and physical conditions with which they have to contend. It is a brilliant idea for a Member of the Conservative Party to suggest that the State should take up all the necessitous undertakings, all the bad ones, while private ownership should take the good. [HON. MEMBERS: "No no."] Again it was suggested by implication, if not by words.
Would the hon. Gentleman mind quoting the passage?
I am just finishing my speech, otherwise I should quote it. The suggestion was made that that could be done because in Holland and Australia the same principle applied.
The hon. Gentleman says that the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) was that the bad pits should be placed under State ownership and the good pits under private ownership. When he has an opportunity of reading HANSARD, I feel very sure he will withdraw that, because it is not what my hon. and gallant Friend said.
No, quite true, it is my construction of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.
I ask the hon. Member to quote the words accurately. He will withdraw it when he reads the report tomorrow.
All right, I will read it. It was the implication in the speech when the hon. and gallant Member suggested that half the pits should be carried on by private enterprise and half by State ownership. I say that is a ridiculous and fantastic suggestion if anyone has any knowledge of the industry.
The social and working conditions of the miner can only be improved under a unified industry, an industry run by the State. The standard of living must be raised, otherwise this industry will never be successful either under private ownership or under nationalisation. No industry can be successful unless the co-operation of the workers is obtained in that industry. Not only must the standard of living be raised, but the miners' health, safety and welfare, for which private ownership has had no regard whatever. It did not matter at all to the mine management—
Dare the hon. Gentleman say that, in face of what the Bolsover company have done for their people in the last 40 years?
The statement I am making is a general one, and it is true in the general sense. We know that, in every industry, there are good and bad employers and the mining industry is no exception to the rule. We have in the mining industry one or two good employers. They are very few and far between.
rose —
I have answered the hon. Member's question, and met the point he has raised. This industry, in my opinion, can be made attractive to the youth who enter it and can give them a great future, so that when a youth grows to manhood he will be able to say to his son, "Go into the mines, there is a future for you." Today there is no future for the boy who enters the mine; there is only hard work and comparatively low wages. We are determined that this shall be altered at the earliest possible moment. It must be done if this great industry is to survive and give the nation the coal it needs. Given the right type of men of proved technical and organising ability, and men who have a human understanding of those who work in the industry, of the miner and his problems, nationalisation of the mines cannot fail to succeeed.
4.50 p.m.
I rise to support this Bill in so far as it gives an opportunity for the transfer to public ownership of the coal industry. I would make three points. In the first place—although perhaps this is not strictly on the Bill—there is a very good case, in my opinion, for the extension into public ownership of the working of all underground minerals in this country. When the Minister described the conditions of work and the inefficiency in the coal industry today, I could not help thinking how truly these were applicable to the slate mines in my own constituency, where there has been incomplete development and where there is need of fresh pumping in of capital, which only the resources of the State could guarantee. I mention that, because I believe the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility in this matter.
In the second place, with regard to this Bill and the fresh approach it promises, there is no guarantee of success, as the Chancellor said it might conceivably fail. But at least, the conditions of success are there, and under these conditions the industry can go forward to success. In my opinion, the one guarantee of success will be effective and immediate decentralisation of functions by the National Coal Board. I wish the Minister had told us more about the extent of that decentralisation. I hope that it will be effective, and that there will not be a long process of referring matters to the Board for decision. I hope there will be a series of units with a high degree of autonomy, able to make prompt decisions, and I hope that these units will have ample powers to experiment in their different undertakings, so that the decentralisation of operation may be a real thing. Of course, they will look to the National Coal Board for assistance as regards transport, development and the like, but let there be as great a facility as possible for the exercise of initiative by the regional units.
Thirdly and lastly, I should like to press the point that social considerations, as well as economic ones, should enter into the scheme of decentralisation. After all when you are nationalising a heavy industry of this magnitude, that development is bound to have its social implications. I have heard Members on the opposite side say that Socialism is bringing democracy from the realm of politics into the field of economics. I should have thought it might have been more effective, rather than having one National Coal Board, if we had separate coal boards, one for Wales, one for England and one for Scotland if they want it. But I would ask the Minister, if I may have his attention for a moment, when he is considering his decentralisation scheme to treat Wales as one economic unit for this purpose. There is great feeling among us on that point, for we wish to be treated as one unit for social and economic purposes in all Government schemes. Our experience fortifies my opinion that we have done very badly in waiting on departmental doorsteps for decisions. We can contribute to the common wealth if we have an effective voice, not in any abstract manner and not in any realm of pious hopes, but in great Measures of this character. I hope the Government will consider favourably the three points I have mentioned, and that the scheme may go forward to success, because I consider that it will produce willing co-operation and understanding among all sections of the British community.
4.57 p.m.
It is with a great deal of timidity that I rise to address the House for the first time, but the fact that I intervene to support this Bill, gives me a certain amount of encouragement and enthusiasm and enables me to overcome that timidity. I am convinced that there is not one atom of logic in the arguments of the Opposition. To be perfectly frank, I think that only two hon. Members who spoke during the Debate so far have any understanding of the conditions and the ramifications of coalmining. One could give credence to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) as a colliery owner attached to a fairly energetic and enterprising group of collieries, but I think he really defended the Government attitude, in so far as private enterprise had failed. The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), a past Minister of Fuel and Power, made his contribution. I was prepared to have a great deal of interest in his speech, but despite all his past experience, 25 of the 35 minutes of his address were devoted to the financial aspects of the Bill. The only other points that he made covered the decline in output since he finished his Ministerial term of office, and also the question of absenteeism. There is a good deal to be said in defence of absenteeism. As a miner at the coal face, where I worked for 26 years, it was my practice, when I had heartburn, to get a little bit of coal and suck it. I am firmly convinced that, although I have heard more about coal and coal questions from hon. Members opposite since I have been in this House, than ever I heard in the whole of my experience in the mines, they could not, with all due deference to them, hew enough coal to cure my heartburn.
I have the greatest admiration for the acting Leader of the Opposition, but he had my sympathy because he had no case to defend, and the Tory Press to-day condemns him for it. He quoted the Reid Report. In fact, all hon. Members opposite who have spoken have quoted that Report, but I would point out to them that it is just as much a condemnation of the colliery owners as of hon. Members who have been representatives of Government for so many years. I submit quite seriously that when the right hon. Gentleman quoted paragraph 158 in the Reid Report it would have been better had he referred to an earlier paragraph, which condemns both mineowners and others. I would suggest that hon. Members read paragraph 137, which gives the very reasons why Great Britain could not possibly compete with the modern methods which are in use in America. It states:
The question led up to by the hon. Member for Monmouth was, "Will our men meet their obligations?" Possibly there may be a testing time, but one has to appreciate the fact that there will need to be a new psychology. Our young men have to be educated, and I am satisfied that, with the right type of manager, they can easily be educated. I think it should be thoroughly understood that the type of young man working in the mines today is not the type of man who was working there 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago. Different psychology, different mental outlook, slightly better education—those are points to remember. They have been taught in the finest school, far better than the university, and that is the school of experience. They do not intend—and God forbid that they should—to do what I had to do as a comparatively young man, and that is to work 10 hours a day at a colliery for 1s. 2d. Those days have gone never to return.
Another question is, "Shall we have cheap coal?" Our opponents are saying that they are concerned with the consumer. Is not this side of the House concerned with the consumer? God forbid that we should sell coal cheaply at the expense of the men who produce it. Some of us, possibly, have longer memories than others. Coal has been sold at 12s. 6d. per ton free on board—12s. 6d. a ton to go to the Continent. Hon. and gallant Members—or if not them directly, then their relatives or very close political friends—were then selling coal on the Continent and in Egypt at 35s. per ton retail, and our men, women and children were going to the employment exchange. We hope that those days have gone. An attempt has been made to use the position in those days as an argument in regard to joint control. A more damnable statement was never made. It is ridiculous to the fullest degree. Joint control has never been exercised. It is true that there have been pit production committees, but it is also true that if fundamental principles were to be tackled, or if a matter involved a question of capital expenditure, then the agent at the colliery, or whoever was responsible, would say, "You cannot do it. That is an economic problem. Rubber is scarce, engineering is scarce, everything is scarce." Possibly there was a shortage, but it is fair to say, with reference to an important industry of the character of mining, that regardless of the shortage of rubber, coal must be procured.
Let me cite now a case of joint control. We had it during 1914–18 when some of us were doing our little bit, as our gallant men have done theirs during this war. When I started at the colliery—in keeping with a good number of collieries—whole districts had been prepared while there was Government control, whole districts of virgin coal were left untapped ready for the kick-off, and waiting for the embargo to be lifted. That shows the honesty and integrity of mineowners. That was control. Nothing more absurd or farcical, or ironical ever was stated either in this House or elsewhere. The same thing applied during 1940–1941.
How can we improve the output? That is the burning question, particularly on the part of our opponents on the other side of the House. We want more coal. I venture to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they have had a long time in which to tell us how to get it. It is up to us, with the lack of manpower, to attempt to get more coal. They have failed miserably. Might I suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that, when he is dealing in the future with the problem of output per manshift worked, he should get down to some of the figures. I think I can safely say that even the previous Minister of Fuel and Power never got correct statistics from the colliery companies, and I indicate that the present Minister is not getting them at the moment. There are far too many people walking about doing nothing in the collieries. [ Interruption. ] On whose side? Not the workmen. Oh, no. That has been indicated already by employing at this late hour and at £1,000 and £1,500 a year men to look after the welfare of the miner. What for? I could indicate that very briefly. I remember a director a few years ago whose son came out of the university, and was launched in business by his father. He failed, and went back home and the father launched him again. The father said to the mother, "I do not know what we are going to do this time." And the mother replied, "I think we ought to wait until we see if there is a vacancy on the directors." They made him a director of a colliery concern.
These are some of the factors that have been facing us. I would indicate to the Minister that, when he is getting his Coal Board, not only will he need technicians. He will need men who understand human psychology, and have got, at least, a little bit of common sense and know the practical side of mining and its ramifications. I submit that it would create a better spirit, if he eradicated some of the unemployed bosses. We have far too many in the collieries today. The Minister should give some responsibility to the manager, who has control of the mine for the safety of the men. If there is a fatal accident, who is responsible? The manager. He is responsible in that case, but has no responsibility for any payments. If there is one-eighth of a penny to be knocked off a district, it goes down to the manager, who has the responsibility of the working of the mine and the safety of the men and boys, but, if it is a question of payment, it is a case of "Keep off."
Until we go back to the system operated in the old days, under which a deputy had control over a district and had the confidence of the men working in that district, and under which that deputy could make a bargain with those men and get the work done, we shall not be much better off. But what happens today? There may be an argument by one man which can upset a team of 30 or 40, who should produce 400 tons of coal that day, and, possibly, the argument is about 7s. 6d We have, in the past, lost not 40, or 400, but 4,000 tons of coal for less than 7s. 6d. If that is good judgment or good administration, I do not know the meaning of those terms. But the grievances have been too long outstanding. The deputy has no responsibility, nor has the overman, the under-manager or even the manager, and it is always a fortnight or three weeks before even a small dispute or grievance is settled. Therefore, all the results have got to come back on to the poor miner. I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power should give this aspect of the question very serious consideration.
Much has been said on coal, but on one very important factor the Opposition seem to be very quiet, and it is rather disturbing to me. That is the question of oil, benzine and all the ancillary chemical products. I am very pleased indeed to know that the Minister is taking over the coke oven plants, in particular, and I suggest that he might well develop the coking industry to some magnitude and centralise it, rather than leave it in the small coking plants existing to-day. What they do in America can be done here, so far as coking is concerned. Although it is under private enterprise, they have, at least, centralised it to a very large degree. Another suggestion which I would make to the Minister is that, in the administration of the coking industry, he should get technical staff and experienced men who have been dealing with coke, and that he should not follow the practice in some parts of the coalfields, where colliery managers do the job for which a highly skilled technical man is required. I hope the Minister will give the industry more guidance on that aspect.
If he will give the colliery managers opportunities, without so much interference, so that they can have a common understanding with the men, they will work to a much more satisfactory degree, because, after all, this has been, and still is today, the stigma on the British miner. Whilst we may have one or two, shall we say, wolves in the pack—and, surely, we are not the only class of workmen or section of society which has a few wolves in the pack—I will defend the British miner anywhere. The British miner, and his wife and family, are the most hard-working, courageous, and industrious individuals in this world. Thank Heaven, the day has gone when they were still prepared to be driven. In recent years, they have been led, and, as a leader of the miners for 20 years, with experience of some of the most difficult times they had to encounter, I am satisfied that, if a reasonable case is put to them, they will listen as intelligently and interestedly as any other workmen or individuals.
In conclusion, I submit to the Minister some observations which I hope he will take seriously. I am not dealing with manpower, which has already been dealt with sufficiently. In the first place, I suggest that the Minister should amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act, because, within the confines of that Act neither management nor workmen can get either wages or coal at present. Secondly, another very disturbing factor ought to be borne in mind by the Minister, and that is that the "Get rich quick" idea has got to go. I seriously suggest that the Minister should develop the retreat system wherever practicable. That suggestion was made in a coalfield with which I am particularly conversant 20 years ago, but I was a young, inefficient man and had not got my ticket. The suggestion concerned a district where headings had been driven to a boundary, with a square mile and a half of coal—the finest coal in the world, nine feet thick. Yet, today, they are working it to the degree that the extraction from that nine-foot seam is only 4 ft. 6 in., and 4 ft. 6 in. of the best coal in the world is being left in that pit. A more wicked shame never existed, and it was sheer stubbornness. Possibly because the scheme was suggested by the miners' leaders, it was not accepted. I hope the Minister will take that sort of thing into consideration.
Particularly in view of the rubber shortage, I will suggest to the Minister that rubber units of 200 yards, 300 yards, and, in some cases, 400 yards in length are not practicable. I suggest that, as a fundamental principle is safety, the maximum should be from 75 yards to 100 yards, and if that were adopted, the Minister would get better output and a better cycle of operations. The last point I wish to make is that, at the earliest possible moment, facilities for riding to and from their places of work should be provided for the men and boys in the mines. I am convinced that after walking two or three miles to and from work with tool plates and other implements, a man does not feel disposed to give of his best for seven and a half hours a day. If other people had to undergo the terrible ordeals connected with coalmining, stripped practically naked and wet through with perspiration before they started the day's work, I am satisfied they would realise the implications and complications of the miner
5.21 p.m.
I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
Regarding the Amendment, it has been said that there has not been much punch or controversy on this side of the House. I have never been afraid of controversy, and if I stir up a little before I sit down it is a healthy sign. First and foremost, I will say that I am going to confine my speech to a reasonable length. I hate to make long speeches myself and I hate them from other people. At the same time, it is rather difficult to condense an enormous Measure of this character into a two days' Debate, and I am bound to say that in other Parliaments it would have been considered impossible, for a Bill of this importance, to have been dealt with in less than four days. But we shall do what we can in the time available.
The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary rather astonished me when he said he had no questions to answer, and that nothing much had been said from this side of the House. I rather think the hon. Gentleman's attention must have lapsed once or twice in the course of yesterday's Debate. Is he aware that two vital questions were put to which no answers have been given? Both of them were of vital importance. The acting Leader of the Opposition demanded to know what was the tenure of this new National Board, and by whom it was dismissible. Those questions go to the very roots of this scheme, and yet we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that there is nothing worth answering. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has not discovered the surveys made by the late Minister of Fuel and Power, and that his chief has not decided what the tenure of this Board is to be or who is to dismiss it. If that is so, it is time they made up their minds before bringing a Bill of this character before Parliament for discussion.
I noted in the Government Press today—in the "Daily Herald"—that, for some reason or other, they have decided there is some odd reason for this Amendment being moved from the Back Benches, and that there is some dispute in the ranks of the Conservative Party. It was also suggested that the Conservative Party were bitterly dissatisfied with the speech made by the acting Leader of the Opposition yesterday. There is absolutely no truth in any of these things. My right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the Opposition increased his own stature and that of his party by the speech he made yesterday, a speech which showed wisdom and vigour not always heard in this House. The Lobby correspondent speaks of Conservative complaints. I would point out that there is no Conservative Member of this House who would so far demean himself as to criticise his own Leader to a Lobby correspondent of the "Daily Herald". The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power was rather contemptuous of the Amendment which had been put down and which had not been moved when he made his speech yesterday. The gist of what he said was that, after all, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has accepted the principle of nationalisation; the coalowners have accepted the principle and, therefore, there is really not very much more to be said. What a travesty of the facts? He knows the position of the coalowners. Undoubtedly, they have made up their minds on what they believe is inevitable, and have decided to be as good boys as they can in the hope of getting as much compensation as they can.
Very public spirited.
Not a very heroic attitude, I agree, but one not unnatural. Not being connected with the coal trade myself, I cannot say whether their's is a sensible attitude, but it is very different from accepting nationalisation as something which it is believed will work. When the right hon. Gentleman took occasion to read the statement by the ex-Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford he did not read very much of it. Nobody would maintain that there might not be industries, where there is no competition and where no particular initiative is needed, which could reasonably be nationalised. Neither the Conservative party nor this Amendment seeks to say that nationalisation in all or any circumstances may not be justified in cases of the kind I have indicated. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford actually say? The Minister of Fuel and Power merely quoted the following words:
In my view and that of my hon. Friends, this Bill has not been produced primarily in order to benefit the coal trade. It has been produced to pave the way for the wholesale socialisation of industry because the coal trade is an admirable basis on which to advance such a thesis of policy. But if it is produced for socialism and not for efficiency, anyone who has no confidence in the Socialist programme has a perfect right to say that this Bill has not been conceived for the sort of reasons—[ Interruption ]—I did not hear that interjection. I will certainly give way to any questions which are asked, but if I give way very often it will lengthen my speech, and I do not want to make it inordinately long. I do not mind giving way, and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) knows that quite well. The Government know perfectly well that no impartial Commission worthy of the name has ever yet recommended nationalisation as a cure for the ills of the diverse industry known as coal. I am glad to note that, at any rate in this Debate, no one has produced the Sankey Commission Report as an argument in favour of it. That being so, there is no need for me to demolish that Report, except to say that, if you set up a body consisting of six Socialists, six non-Socialists and a Socialist-minded chairman, who afterwards got the reward of his endeavours, they will make their report in accordance with their political beliefs without needing one word of evidence. Since then we have had one more Commission, and a technical Commission.
I do not propose to speak at length on the Samuel Report, but I would say that that Commission was composed of persons who were not connected with the mining industry. It included such reactionary figures as Sir William Beveridge and the present Lord Samuel—not the sort of commission to turn with hungry and eager eyes towards pleasing the Conservative Party. I do not want to trouble the House with quotations, but I will just refer to the Samuel Report, because nothing which has happened since has altered the truth of its contents. It says on page 66: mented if we were to have nationalisation. The Reid Committee never suggested that, and I would remind hon. Members opposite that in the Press conference which was held preparatory to the issuing of the Report, the Chairman of the Reid Committee, Sir Charles Reid, as he now is, stated that in his view nationalisation would not solve the coal problem. Whatever the Reid Committee may have done, there was no question of its recommendations being bound up with a change of ownership in the coal industry. Let us turn to matters on which we can honestly disagree rather than beat about with trifles which, after all, are not worthy of argument because they are matters which are beyond argument, in view of the statements which have been made by the Reid Committee itself.
The next point on which I want to say a word concerns output. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power was rather contemptuous when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) quoted certain figures with regard to the decline of output between 1941 and 1945. As the House may recollect, broadly speaking, the figures for 1941, the last year under private enterprise, were: 697,000 miners, 206,000,000 tons; 1944, 710,000 miners, 184,000,000 tons; and this last year the figures which were given to us by the Minister were: 694,000 miners, 174,000,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman interrupted the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde and said in effect, "After all, the number of miners appears to be much the same. The fact is that a large number of miners have gone out of the industry and we have merely got Bevin boys to take their place." I would make two observations on that. First of all, between 1941 and 1945, 40,000 Bevin boys came into the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the fall in tonnage between 1941 and 1945—a fall of 32,000,000 tons—was due to the introduction of 40,000 Bevin boys into the pits? I suggest that the Bevin boys have played a better part in the mining industry than that for which the right hon. Gentleman has given them credit. They have prepared the way for other men to go to the coal face and elsewhere. The majority of them have worked loyally in that form of industry to which they have been directed, whether they would or not, and in many instances it can be said of the Bevin boys that, not having had 20, 30 or 40 years of seeping in political agitation, they are rather less easily beguiled than those who have had the poison of political agitation—
I think it ought to be understood that the Bevin boys are not coal producers at the coal face. I am not decrying the usefulness of the Bevin boy who has entered the pit, but I think this House ought to understand that the Bevin boys have not gone to the coal face. They have gone on haulage work.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that on this side of the House we are fully aware of that, but what the Bevin boys have, in fact, done is to make it possible for other men to be taken on at the face. They have taken the place of others—
I do not like to interrupt, but it is not true. The coal face workers have never replaced those men who have gone into the Army. That is the difficulty. You cannot get coal face workers.
It is perfectly true that we have a shortage of coal face workers. No one is denying that. We had a shortage of coal face workers in 1941, and in 1941 they had already gone into the Army.
That is perfectly true; they have not been replaced.
I am not going to elaborate that point or we shall get on to those byways which would lengthen my speech unnecessarily. The fact remains that they have helped in the coal industry, and if anyone made the implication that they have been a dead loss on the industry it would be an implication which we would not like to arise from any quarter of the House.
Let me now deal with the question of the National Coal Board. The powers of the Board are very vague and ill-defined. As I observed before the right hon. Gentleman came in, we are in this absurd position, that although he has been pressed to say by whom the members of his own Board are dismissible and what is their tenure of office, he did not answer it. We were informed that we would get the answer, but we had no satisfactory answer from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. That is not the sort of evasion which makes it easy to understand this Bill. We have had other examples of that. Yesterday afternoon the question arose with regard to consumers' councils The right hon. Gentleman was asked in the Debate by, I think, my right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the Opposition, whether the consumers' councils would have the right to report their findings to the House. No answer was given. The right hon. Gentleman merely said that we could not have everything in the Bill, and left it at that. It is an important point. He was pressed again by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid), and the right hon. Gentleman said, "If that is the only difference of opinion we have, I can meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman and we can settle that." Again he left it in the air. Finally, pressed a third time, he said, "No, it would be for me to decide whether the information should be published, and not for consumers' councils." How easy it would have been to have answered that point straight away, instead of shuffling it off for half the evening and then producing his answer as a sort of vague concession after it had been raised time after time.
We had the same thing over another important matter. I do not want to stress what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said on the question of the payment of the chairman of the Board, but one would have thought that if it had appeared in the Press that an absurdly high figure was to be paid to the chairman, instead of merely saying that the figures were wrong and leaving it at that, the Minister, with an eye to the psychology of the miner which hon. Members opposite apparently know so well, might at least have said what figure he had in his own mind. He has not got one; that is the answer. If the right hon. Gentleman has not got a figure, I wonder if it is to go to the highest bidder when he has searched in a few more uncertain places. He must know approximately what he is going to pay. He has told us that we need a Board of men of such commercial integrity and vigour that they will be able to do all the things that private enterprise has failed to do in that industry, and he does not yet know what he is going to pay them. Let us leave it.
I will say just a word on the question of recruitment to the mines. I realise, as we all do in this House, that the labour recruitment to the mines is the most difficult problem, and it is a problem which would have arisen whether this industry were in private or public hands, but I would make two observations. There is no doubt that the fact that young persons were able to earn comparatively high money in munitions during the war played a certain part in that question of recruitment. It is not for me to say to what extent, but it did undoubtedly draw men who would otherwise have gone to the mines. There is, however, another reason, and here I run the risk of being controversial.
I know full well that hon. Members in this House who have served in the mines, who have later left the mines and have become Members of Parliament, are naturally always anxious to talk about the industry, but they are also inclined to talk, as indeed they are entitled to, about their early days and their early struggles in the industry in the past, but do they really think that if men who were down the pits 20 years ago continually talk, as responsible Members of Parliament in the present age, as though there had hardly been any change in conditions, they are not encouraging the youth of this nation to go into the mines? I would pass that comment because, of one thing I am certain, that this will play a part unless hon. Members are prepared to give a little more credit for what has been done in the last 20 years.
In making that reference, surely the hon. Member was not complaining of the admirable maiden speech made by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) who left the pits in June of last year, and can therefore talk with authority on present-day conditions.
It is part of the courtesy of this House that one never makes any criticism of a maiden speech, and I was not dealing with that hon. Member. I was remembering many speeches I have heard in many coal Debates, particularly during the war period, which time after time created an unfavourable atmosphere. Again, I leave it at that, as my time is practically up.
In choosing the coal industry as their first step to socialisation, the Government have chosen a path which will lead them into great danger. No Socialist Government, in view of the propaganda which they have poured out amongst the miners during the last 30 or 40 years, dare do anything less than advocate nationalisation. The miner has been taught, time after time, to believe that all the injustices and many of the difficulties he has to face are connected with the question of ownership. If, when the ownership is changed, there does not come an amazing—and I think, an impossible—change in the way in which men can work and output be increased, there will be a great deal of bitterness down the pits.
An article was written the other day about the attitude of men in the coal areas at the present time. What did that article say—I will give the name of the author in a moment:
There is no doubt that in the first instance great hopes are being created amongst the mining population by this Bill, and the real tragedy will appear after it becomes an Act, and the promised good times fail to appear. Then there will be a dispute and struggle, unequalled in history, between the State and the mine-workers, with the State as arbiter no longer. I am not blaming the mine-workers for it, in view of the propaganda they have had to face in recent years. The mineworkers will be saying: "Now we expect the right hon. Gentleman to fulfil the promises we have had for years of shorter hours and higher wages." Beyond a certain degree no government today could accept those demands, in view of the present position in the coal industry, its present output and the cost of coal. The final tragedy is that all the things that could be done to improve the condition of the coal trade could have been done without a Nationalisation Bill.
Will the hon. Gentleman say why the Conservative Party did not do that when it had the opportunity?
My observation in reply to that would be that after all, during a period of years in the '30s, we were still recovering from the great slump. But already by 1939 and in the years beyond that there had been an increase in machinery.—[ Interruption. ]—I am not going to be drawn into the question of 1926. The return to the gold standard in 1925 in my view struck a much heavier blow at the mining industry than anything else. The Conservative Party was pledged to the hilt to the full implementation of the Reid Report, and implemented it would have been, without the need for nationalisation.
Two other things are needed for an increase of output. One is an unpopular thing, maybe; it has not been mentioned in this House during the Debate, but I propose to mention it because I think it is true. If you want to stimulate output, get your austere right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to relax austerity. Give the men who are being paid good wages in the pits something to spend them on. Get the shops filled up. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Members may laugh, but the more a man can spend what he earns, the more he will keep up his production. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Rake's Progress."] I would say, rather than the Rake's Progress, the progress of wisdom, but I think perhaps I am wiser than some on the other side. Then, we know nothing about the form of discipline which there will be in the pits under the new scheme. One thing is certain, whether there is private ownership or Government control, and that is that some degree of discipline must be restored to the pits if absenteeism is to be reduced. In this connection I would give one warning. Reference has been made to the Dutch mines, part privately owned and part under State control. When the Director of the State mines was over here some time ago, he gave his opinion to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde in regard to the two forms of ownership. The private mines in Holland are slightly more efficient—
I do not accept that at all.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts it or not, I propose to put it forward in order that the House can hear. According to the Director, the State-owned mines were slightly less efficient than the privately-owned mines, and to level it up their standard of discipline was higher. The result of all this is going to be that the miners, instead of finding their new owners more indulgent, will find that production can only be built up by a tighter degree of discipline.
This is an experiment. In my view, it is a bad experiment, an experiment that could be justified far more if it were carried out as an experiment and not simply to have Socialism for its own sake. I venture to think that the Government are going to dig their own political graves, and when they do, I suggest that the epitaph put upon their tombstone might well be: "1946. The mining industry was handed over to the tailor, put into the strait-jacket of bureaucracy, and suffocated, and died."
5.55 P.m.
I beg to second the Amendment.
In supporting the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) with such a wealth of sound arguments, I would say that the short reason why we are asking the House to reject this Bill is because the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it is shown by the contents of the Bill to be a man who is over anxious to stake his claim as a Minister of Power but is quite inadequate to provide the fuel which the country needs. When the right hon. Gentleman took over his office, what a chance he had for some original thinking, for a new approach to those labour problems which have been the bane of the industry for so long. What a chance to be the first Minister to use to the full our most valuable wartime experience of how to harness a wide variety of production units to a single public policy. What a disappointment the Bill is, and how little the right hon. Gentleman added in his opening speech. All that this Bill does is to transfer the title deeds of 750 colliery undertakings to a State monopoly—to rub out the word "limited" from the name and style of the companies, and to place £150,000,000 of the taxpayers' money at the disposal of these nine shy bosses who, at one jump, are to amalgamate and administer all these various undertakings in a colossal combine. In the history of industry, in no country in the world, have nine men ever been called upon to take on an administrative job of this magnitude who did not have recourse to military discipline to enforce their decisions.
What about the I.C.I.?
It is not on the same scale. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us who is the chairman of his Board. To my mind it will not matter whether he offers seven, seventeen or seventy thousand pounds a year, he will have the greatest difficulty in finding a man of experience to take it on.
We want a contented and efficient labour force in the mines, and more and cheaper coal. To get this, two fundamental conditions must be fulfilled. The mines must be reorganised on the lines of the Reid Report, and the miners must be willing to work regularly, for a system of wages that relates increase of pay to output. This Bill proposes to fulfil those two conditions by the clumsy bludgeon of nationalisation, and our Amendment shows—I hope to develop it—what a very second-rate instrument this is to achieve both those purposes.
Take first reorganisation: I do not think the Minister can be blamed for not putting in his Bill a vast plan of technical development, but as we need coal so badly, and as the Minister is a self-styled realist, I should have thought that he would have discarded nationalisation as a method, because it makes very great delays in reorganisation quite inevitable. The speed at which the mines can be reorganised depends on the number of administrators, technicians and draughtsmen available, and on how much of their undivided attention they can give to carrying out the development plan which is entrusted to them. The first principle the Minister should have adopted was to do nothing whatever that would reduce the number of technicians and administrators available, or earn their mistrust, or distract their attention from carrying out the Reid Report.
But what will happen under the nationalisation proposals under this Bill? The Minister and his nominees take vague and enormous powers, and none of the personnel know where they are. He puts every man on his guard against co-operating too whole-heartedly for fear of losing a bargaining position he may need later. Some men of energy and brains and experience, some useful men, will leave the industry and try their hand again in free enterprise. New men will have to come in and get into the saddle, and that takes time. Much worse than that, those who remain in the industry will, for the next three or four years, have to devote the greater part of their time not to carrying out the Reid Report at all, but to adjusting 750 undertakings to the structure of a State monopoly. Anyone who has had experience of integrating the staffs of even two reasonable-sized businesses knows that to undertake the task of integrating 750 separate undertakings is overwhelming; and it will make it impossible for the best brains to devote their time to the technical development of the industry.
Here we see that the Minister has deliberately chosen a method, for the sake of Socialist theory, which will put a severe brake on the carrying out of the reorganisation of the mines, which we know to be the first priority.
One word about the Mineworkers' Federation. I still do not know with whom the Federation is going to negotiate for wages or conditions. Is it the Board or is it the Minister? I hope we shall get a clear answer from the Lord President; because up to now, if the mine workers' representatives have got a "No" from the Mining Association, they could go back to the pits and use any language they liked in laying the blame on the coal owners. Suppose they do not get full satisfaction of their demands in future, they have got to go back to the pits and put the blame on this great and glorious Government and its great and glorious legislation, for which they are largely responsible. That is going to be a most disturbing element in the industry.
If nationalisation is a clumsy bludgeon, what method could the Minister have chosen? Well, we on this side of the House recognise that the industry is in very poor technical shape, but unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, we think it worth while asking the reason before suggesting the remedy. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) said yesterday, the British coalmining industry was technically ahead up to 1914 but fell away afterwards. What was the reason for that? The main reason for that was that after 1918 the industry was weakened and crippled by fluctuating prices and over production. The war left the industry much too big for its market. If any hon. Member wants proof of the truth of that statement, let him look at some similar industries where the market was assured. Let him consider, for example, the gold mining industry. There is an industry where the great bulk of the labour force is entirely uneducated, and yet it has led the world in technical efficiency, mechanisation, and applied science. Why is it that in another industry, agriculture, British farmers during the war suddenly produced 70 per cent. more food, more or less from the same land and more or less with the same labour? The answer, in both the cases of gold mining and agriculture is that there was an assured market, an essential element in the technical progress of any industry whose operations have to be planned at long-term. But stability of markets was completely lacking in the coal industry.
Between the wars, if there had been a stable market for coal, pretty well all the recommendations of the Reid Report would have been put into practice long ago. The owners did not provide that market. In my judgment they should have, and, as they failed, the Government ought to have stepped in and done it for them Where are we now in selling coal? We are in a sellers' market. It would not be difficult to underwrite the output of the coal industry for a considerable period ahead, and to devise a system of planning by regions, under the direction of the Minister, which would ensure that the industry put its house in order on a district basis. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made an interesting comparison between mining and farming. I do commend that comparison to the House. Both are extractive industries. Both suffer peculiarly from the vagaries and accidents of nature. Both have been the prey of fluctuating markets. Yet for mining we are to have this monstrous monopoly with all its administrative difficulties, whereas for agriculture we are well on the way to a new technique of control through guaranteed markets which is going to ensure two things—competitive efficiency of the units in the business and the public calling the tune and getting the food products they want.
Why did not the Minister profit by this immense step in experience? First of all, he is tied by antique promises about State ownership, and then, I believe, he has an understandable tenderness towards those big profits made in the distribution of coal by the "Co-op." Thirdly, it is no good having guaranteed markets unless you have got a wages policy. Guaranteed markets, as the Minister of Agriculture will very soon find, will not work unless profits are limited by taxation and wages are limited by agreements. This Government finds no difficulty about limiting profits but they dare not face the wages issue. We shall not have a sound and successful reorganisation of the coal industry, or of any industry in this country, until we have a wages policy based on common sense, which means a national minimum and every shilling above that related to output. That standard has to be applied from the chairman of the company to the boy who pushes round the tea-wagon. If a man puts nothing in, he should take nothing out; and what a man does put in he should be able to take out.
I pass from the prospects of reorganisation, which are bad, to the prospects of securing a contented and efficient labour force, which are no better. The degree in which most workers show this new spirit mentioned by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) is, of course, a matter of speculation. No one can be certain in advance of this great experiment. The Bill will go through, and then the country will witness what it wants to witness, which is the working of this great experiment in nationalisation, and I hope that it will have a fair and full trial. It is of great public importance that it should, because what the public wants to know and is exceedingly anxious to know is whether a State monopoly can produce coal in the quantity and of the quality which is needed at home and for export and at prices which are neither subsidised nor exorbitant. It is a very good thing that this experiment is going to take place on a scale and under a Government which will leave no room for argument about the value of the results or about the responsibility for the results; and I, for one, am glad that the Mining Association accepted the principle of nationalisation and even offered their assistance in the change-over. I am not at all surprised that the Government are a little nervous about it, because it means that there will be no scapegoat on the side of the owners when the results of the experiment are seen—and are seen to be extremely bad.
I return to the most difficult question: What are the prospects that the labour, force in the mining industry is going to back up this monopoly? On that it will fail or succeed. Many reasons, some good and some bad, have been offered for the continuing reluctance of the miners, or a section of them, to work regularly since their political leaders got their Mandate to nationalise the mines. The average age of the labour force; the strain of the war; the deterrent effect of Pay-as-you-earn and, above all, the shortage of consumer goods on which to spend their additional wages. I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Wavertree said on that point. It would be of interest to hear the comments of the President of the Board of Trade when he is told that the miners will not work extra shifts for the love of austerity, but they would very likely do so for an Austin-Seven which he will not give them. One feature of all these obstacles to higher output is that this Bill does nothing whatever to remove a single one of them. Rather the con- trary. The vagueness of its powers will militate against a spirit of loyalty in the industry; especially because the ordinary man starts by regarding the State as fair game to be hunted, as best he can, any day of the week.
This brings me to what I consider to be the fundamental difference between the Socialist Party and the Conservative Party in their attitude towards nationalisation. We differ on the question of how much loyalty a State monopoly can inspire. On this side of the House, we see nothing which warrants a dramatic change in human nature that will suddenly make men and women want to serve unselfishly a State monopoly. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House take a different view. I appreciate their difficulty. They would like to introduce Socialism into this country without the aid of military discipline, and in a society of free men and women that cannot be done.
Does not the whole history of our war effort completely invalidate what the hon. Gentleman has just said?
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman desires to perpetuate all the wartime controls on labour. I presume from his interjection that he does.
The point which I wanted to make is that the common weal can evoke just as much devotion to duty and as much hard work as ever capitalist persuasion will be able to bring about.
That is where we differ. In my submission, common danger is something much more powerful as a stimulus than common weal. We shall see. A considerable number of hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite are passionately anxious to devote the whole of their own working lives to the service of the community. There are hon. Members on this side of the House with similar ambitions. But the majority of the millions who voted Socialist at the General Election had been encouraged to do so not to give something to the community but to get something out of the community. For years and years, the Socialist rank and file have been taught to regard the State as a miserly old villain, who would disgorge his wealth if only when he were, sufficiently beaten up and finally made their prisoner. This politically successful but nationally disastrous propaganda is coming home to roost. We see how difficult and, in fact, how impossible it is for His Majesty's present advisers to convince their supporters in the country that they ought to work long and hard for the love of men, who have told them all their lives that a State monopoly will bring them blessings without toil, sweat or tears—how pusillanimous are their appeals alongside the ringing words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).
There is a certain animosity for the State bred in our bones. How many of us would feel the same compunction about slipping something through the Customs or leaving out a little item from our Income Tax return as we would about deceiving a private person? The fact is that it is folly to found an economic policy on a change in human nature for which no warrant exists in experience, and that is what the Socialists do, because they wish to introduce their system into a free society. Apart from a handful of idealists whose existence I have admitted and whose devotion I admire, ordinary British men and women will not worship at the altar of the State or tumble over each other to serve unselfishly a monopoly of political creation. Rather will they try to extract from that monopoly a whole series of benefits and advantages which a weakening loyalty and loosening discipline will make them think are theirs by right. That has already happened and it will happen still more.
What will the Minister do then? He will have two choices in front of him. He can make the public pay. He can resort to high prices for coal and coal products or to subsidies by the taxpayers. In this way he can bribe the coal industry with earnings out of line with the rest of the community. He has said that he will not do that. Very well, then, he is driven along the other road. He will be forced to impose controls and directions over labour which will make the Essential Work Order look like freedom. There is no third way to bolster up an inefficient monopoly. Either he must rob the consumer or conscript the worker. I am not going to forecast to which of these two choices the right hon. Gentleman will first be driven.
I conclude by repeating my conviction that there is a much better way in which this industry can be brought under public control and fitted into an expanding economy, but we are not to have it. We are going to have this bad Bill, which is a great Socialist experiment, and when it has had a fair and full trial, and when it is found to fail then my hon. Friends on this side, of the House will bring forward more practical and more human proposals, and they will show once again that the Conservative Party, making use of the experience of the war, and basing their policy on common sense and the world as it is, knows how to get the best out of British men and women.
6.23 p.m.
I am very pleased indeed to have the chance of taking part in this Debate. I am sure that no matter how long I am a Member of this House—and I hope it will be for a long time—there is no subject on which I shall be more desirous of speaking. My interest in politics was first aroused by listening to my father discussing the absolute necessity for the nationalisation of the coalfields in this country. It seems to me most fitting that the first industry that this great Socialist Government of ours should nationalise—and it will be nationalised in spite of the futile attempts of the Opposition—should be the coal industry, for the miners in this country have always been in the very forefront of our great Labour movement. It has been said by hon. Members on the other side, that many miners do not like this Bill. That just shows how clearly those Members do not know the mood of the miners in Great Britain. In my constituency, which is a mining constituency, every miner with whom I have spoken—and I speak with many every weekend—welcomes this Bill, and feels that at last they have a Government which has realised their needs. How could it possibly be otherwise than that they should welcome it when they are Socialists backing this Government?
The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) yesterday said that the industry had got away from the bad old times, that the bad old times were in the dim and distant past; in other words, that El Dorado had almost come to the miners. How can he possibly believe that when in this industry before the war almost 1,000 deaths took place in every year, and one out of every four lads in the pits had an accident before his eighteenth birthday; where wages have always been execrable; where working conditions have been intolerable; and where wages were never commensurate with the risk and the intolerable conditions? These things still exist, or did exist until 1939, under private ownership. On this point I would like to talk about the misery and degradation the miners and the miners' wives and families had to suffer through weeks and long months of strike when they were trying to wrest, under this marvellous thing called private ownership, a just return for their labours. It was only a just return that these men asked for the work they did. They never got it. I speak with some feeling on this matter. My father was a man who worked in the mines all his life, and whose body was wracked, bruised and torn through that work, while my brother had his lung pierced by an accident caused by a runaway hatch and lost a finger in the pit for which there was no adequate compensation. The tragedy is that these are only two of thousands who have suffered in this industry under private ownership. I think that that clearly gives the answer to those hon. Members opposite who yesterday foolishly shouted at the Minister of Fuel and Power "Why?" when he said the miners were embittered people.
There is another point I should like to raise. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), when speaking yesterday, said he was completely against the nationalisation of the coalfields, and that he would walk into the Opposition Lobby when the voting took place. We did not expect anything else from him. He was completely against nationalisation or controlling material, but in that speech he made the suggestion, as did the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, of controlling the human beings in the industry. In other words, they say, "Do hot control material, do not take anything from private ownership and private profits, but control the workers in this country as they have always been controlled." I should like to say to the hon. Member for Monmouth, if he is so anxious to get this coal that we need, that he might be willing to leave his seat on the Opposition side—and I am inclined to feel that it is a rather uneasy seat which he occupies there—and go down to the coal face and help the miners. I welcome this Bill not only because I feel that it will give a square deal to the miners and that it will make a great difference to them, but also because an industrial country like Great Britain must have coal for its industry. Not one Member on the other side, no matter how highly imaginative he is, can possibly say that this industry under private ownership was efficiently organised. Every independent inquiry we have had during the last 25 years, after sifting and weighing the evidence, showed clearly how inefficiently it was organised. Those Members on the other side and their friends the mineowners have had chance after chance to step in and do something to make the industry efficient. They have not taken that chance. The Government in power before this one preferred inefficiency in this industry so that a few might get private profit; they put the welfare of the few before the well-being of the whole community. It has taken a Socialist Government to nationalise the coal industry, which, in effect, means that a Socialist Government put the wellbeing of the people of the whole community in the very forefront, as they have always done.
There is one provision in the Bill that I welcome very much indeed. It is the decision to take over not only the coalmines, but also the ancillary industries. We do not find the mineowners complaining about losing the coalfields, but we do find them complaining bitterly about ancillary industries being taken over. That is one of the reasons why we, as a Labour Government, are taking over ancillary industries because in them lies the profit from the coal which has been hardly won. In the past these industries made high profits by selling coal to themselves at the pit head, at a cheap price, and keeping down wages to the miners. It is not only because of these profits; it is because of the necessity for expanding the by-products of coal that it is essential that the Government should take over these industries. We hope that a Socialist Government will put them on an efficient and proper basis in order to expand the industries which result from coal.
This will mean a great deal to my constituents. When the mines are taken over, and factories are built to deal with by-products, I can envisage that my area will get one of these factories. In my district men are suffering from serious injuries, pneumoconiosis, and other complaints, for which they are not getting proper compensation. They are told that they are fit for a light job, but in my district there is not one such job. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) tried to point out at Preston the other day how the terrible Socialist Government would take away individual liberty from the people. In my constituency there has never been liberty for our people. The majority of our girls have to leave home at the tender age of 14 to go out to the big cities as domestic servants. So, you will see why I am particularly glad that the Government should take over ancillary industries, and develop every ton of coal so as to get the fullest use from it.
The Bill makes provision for the training of young lads, a most important step forward. We find that if our lads want the technical and theoretical training that they must have if they wish to become firemen, under-managers, or managers they have to travel, in many cases, long distances, after having worked many hours in the pits. In my district it is not uncommon to have to travel 14 miles to and from a place in order to get such training. I make this appeal to the Minister: Training time should come from the working hours of these lads. This is important if they are to have any time in which to develop interests outside the industry, and if we are to give them a chance of becoming citizens in the real sense of the word. Take every election for universities, where students have had their noses in their books almost all the time, and you will find that it has been shown clearly that they have never developed the citizenship that we think important, because not one Member who has ever been returned for a university seat has been a Socialist.
I want to make a criticism of a statement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday. He pointed out that there would be large numbers of men, women and children who would have to be moved from Lanarkshire to the East of Scotland. Well, I have read the Reid Report and I agree with ever so much in it, but I say to the Minister: Do not accept everything as gospel that is in that Report. The writer of that Report envisaged the coal industry as being re-organised under private ownership. We know that under private ownership very little would be done to reclaim coal, no matter how necessary it was for the welfare of the country. We have found in Lanarkshire that coalowners took out coal that was easy to win, and which quickly rendered high profits. They left the pits when there were still thousands of tons of coal in them that could be worked. Now that coal has become watered. We cannot expect private owners to do anything about it. and the Reid Report suggested that it could not be done. But we are getting away from private owners; we are having a nationalised industry that must take account not only of the wellbeing of people in one part of the country, but of the wellbeing of the whole of the community. I say to the Minister: Do not let the Coal Board repeat the parrot cry of a dying coalfield in Lanarkshire until every possibility has been worked out to see if that coal can be reclaimed. It has been said before that there is a seam of coal in Lanarkshire that has not been touched. I would like that to be looked into, because miners in Lanarkshire are looking to the present Minister to treat them in a very different way from that in which private owners treated them. They are not looking for something for nothing, as has been suggested. Nationalisation will work, not through any control or discipline which Members opposite seem to think is the only way of getting coal, but by seeing that miners have good wages and better conditions. If the Minister sees to both of these things he will have the loyalty of the miners behind him.
Our miners do not want to move to the East, and I would plead with the Minister to see that he does not fail them. I could deal with the welfare, safety and health of the miners, but I want to finish on this last point. The mineowners seem to be perfectly content with what they hope to get from compensation. That detracts from my joy in this Bill. Compensation, I understand, is to be based on the ascertainment figures between 1922 and 1939. Is the tribunal which is to decide to take into account the prospects of profit in the post-war years? I am certain that the prospect of profits in the post-war years, under private control, would be very much smaller than they were from 1922 to 1939. Members have stressed that the number of men in the industry is dwindling. It would dwindle further if the industry were kept under private ownership. Everything points to the fact that there would have been a decrease in profits in the post-war years. So, I hope all these things will be taken into account before the global compensation figure is reached. Compensation must not be too high; it could not possibly be too low for owners who have taken huge profits from the blood, sweat and tears of our miners and their womenfolk.
6.40 p.m.
I welcome this opportunity of saying a few words in support of this Bill, and I do so as a representative of Kirkcaldy, which is in the heart of the Fife coalfields. The lives of our people are so bound up with the future of these coalfields that almost every person there welcomes this Bill. Fife is very lucky inasmuch as its coal deposits are very rich, so rich that, although the coalfields and miners there have a splendid record, it can still be said that Fife is a developing mining area, and that there is a great future still ahead of Fife in the mining industry.
I am happy that we have this Bill before us today, because I know that development in our area, as well as in others, can now be really planned development. Although our area is rich in coal deposits there is little sign of prosperity in our mining communities; indeed, poverty and insecurity have been the lot of our mining communities for far too long. This Bill does not merely affect miners, or those who work and live in mining communities. It affects all our industries and the wellbeing of all our people. The great bulk of industry is still dependent on production of coal. Much has been said by the Opposition about the fall in production. I suggest that that in itself is an argument why the present ownership of the mines should be discontinued. There are reasons why coal production has been falling. There are many problems to be solved in the industry, and nationalisation alone will not solve them. But what it will do is to provide facilities for solving those problems. Nobody on this side of the House has, I think, claimed that nationalisation will solve those problems, but we know that con- tinuation of the present system makes it impossible properly to face up to them.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) complained bitterly yesterday because the House had not been informed as to who would be the chairman of the new Board. I do not see why we should want to know who the chairman is to be yet, because the Board cannot be set up until the Bill becomes an Act. How can anyone expect the Minister to say who the chairman will be when we cannot say that this nationalisation will be accepted? The Bill has many phases to go through before it becomes law, but no doubt when the time comes the Minister will make known to this House the name of the chairman of the Board, the members and their salaries. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said yesterday that this Bill would, perhaps, not bring about the nationalisation that the miners wanted, or thought they wanted. Nobody need worry about that. Nationalisation, as proposed in this Bill, is absolute. It provides for complete State control of the coalfields. That is the only kind of nationalisation there can be. Does the miner want nationalisation? There is only one answer to that. The miner will never forget, he can never forget, that in the early '30's so low were wages that a charity fund was established in order to subsidise those who were in employment, not unemployed. It was to implement their wages. Who was responsible for that? Not a Labour Government. I had to take part in the distribution of parcels of sugar, ham and margarine to men who were in work. So, we need not worry as to whether miners want nationalisation. They know that something better will face them in the future. There are thousands of miners who have broken bodies, who are struggling for their livelihood in the mines, as a result of accidents, many of which need not have happened. My hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) spoke of the blood, sweat and tears of our miners in the past. I have spent many years in coalmines, and it has been my lot on many occasions to help to take out injured workmen, and sometimes to dig out those who had been killed. On almost every occasion I could see that had it not been for the need to speed up, so that they could earn wages a little above the standard rate, those accidents need not have happened. The new Board must see that every step is taken in the future to prevent unnecessary accidents.
The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) spoke disparagingly of the men who came here many years ago, and who so often spoke about the hard times they had in the mines. That is remarkable evidence that the miners welcome nationalisation. Miners have sent many good men to this House for that purpose; many are still here; some are occupying important positions in this Labour Government. The miners of Fife sent here a representative who became a Secretary of State for Scotland, and the present Secretary of State for Scotland is an ex-miner from Fife. These men were sent here by their organised trade unions, because they know better than anybody else the impossible conditions under which many had to go down the mines for their livelihood.
I suggest that the Bill now before the House is a tribute to those who have come to this House and those who sent them. One thinks today of the great industrial leaders of the past, Arthur Cook and Herbert Smith, Tom Richardson and Tom Richards, and Scotland's own leader, Bob Smillie. It is a pity they are not here to see the results of their great labour. One must also think of those great present-day leaders of the mining industry such as we find in the persons of Will Lawther, Arthur Horner, Ebby Edwards, and Abe Moffat, who comes from my own county of Fife. All of these have done so much to bring before the country the great need of the industry.
No matter what academic arguments may be put forward in this House, yea or nay for the nationalisation principle, we can have coal in this country only if we can get miners to produce it, and I want to suggest that we shall never have the necessary recruitment to the mines so long as they continue to be owned and operated by the present owners. I speak with some feeling as a miner who would have done anything rather than see my sons go to the mines to experience the same insecurity and dangers, the same low wages as I have had to suffer myself.
While we are listening with great sympathy to the hon. Member's very sincere and moving record of his experiences, is it not a fact that since it became known that the mines were to be nationalised the drift away from them has been greater than ever before?
I do not accept that. All that has happened is that the miners are growing old in the mines, and there has been no new recruitment. Those who have left the mines as the result of age or accidents have not been replaced by younger men anxious to enter the profession.
Is it not a fact that considerable sections of the miners are very sorry indeed that the mines are to be nationalised?
If the hon. Gentleman will substitute "coalowners" for "coalminers" I will accept what he says. I suggest that it is of great importance to the future, not only of the miners, that this country should get the coal it needs. The great bulk of industry in this country depends on coal and that coal will not be forthcoming without new recruitment. We hope that nationalisation will solve this. We, who have some experience in the mines and know the shortcomings of the present system, have some idea as to what might be done to increase output. We have seen things already that perhaps might solve part of the problem. We have introduced in this country an American machine known as the "Duckbill" machine, which was built for coal seams in America, and has been used here with success, with so much success, in fact, that I am convinced that if machinery were built to suit the seams in this country and built in this country, it would go a long way to solving many of the difficulties we have in the mines today. By this means we could remove much of the laborious and uncongenial nature of work in the coalmines. We do not, however, expect to find these things in a Bill which is meant merely to nationalise the mines. It does not claim to reorganise them. That will come; it must come. Therefore, I suggest that we can look forward to mines which will be freed from all the difficulties of the past. I know that some things have been done, particularly in the Fife coalfield, to deal with this question of mechanising the coalmines. The Fife Coal Company has tried many things. Machinery has been introduced. But hon. Members must realise the difference between production per man and production per man at the coal face. These are two entirely different things. I can well remember in the past that, if I had produced five tons of coal per shift, I should have been considered to have done a good day's work. The introduction of machinery brought no benefits at all to the coalminers. It simply meant that now that the coal was undercut by a machine the miner was expected to produce something like 10 or 12 tons of coal instead of five.
I am very concerned about the future of the mines, but I am absolutely certain that, with good will and co-operation—and the miners are intelligent people—much can be done. I am convinced that the hon. Member who sat down on the other side of the House a few minutes ago knows little about the miners. He may know a great deal about companies, contracting, and the like, but he would not have spoken of the miners expecting an immediate benefit from nationalisation had he known more about them. They know perfectly well that there will be neither an immediate increase in the production of coal, nor an immediate increase in wages, nor yet an immediate reduction in hours. They are far too intelligent to expect that. They read nothing in this Bill except what they are intended to read. They differ so much in that respect from hon. Members opposite. They know that reorganisation can only come as a sequel to nationalisation, and that it would be impossible otherwise.
I have no wish to take up the time of the House but I should like to compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. He has had the honour of introducing this great Measure into this House of Commons. It is the first of a number of great Measures that will be introduced, not because we are driven to introduce them by trades union pressure, but simply because we wish to ensure that the common people of this country are going to enjoy that for which they have fought so long and for which they have made so many sacrifices. I feel happy that coal should be the first of these great plans which will be before this House under a single heading. None of us on this side are ashamed, indeed we are proud, that they appear under the heading, "Progress, Socialism."
6.59 p.m.
I rise to put one or two points with regard to this Bill and I should like to appeal to all Members, whatever their Party, to try if possible to decide whether this is a good or a bad Bill for industry in general as well as for the mining industry. The Government are bringing in a Bill which has been promised to the mining community for many years, and I think we ought to be very careful with a Measure of this kind, lest at a later date we bring disaster and bankruptcy not only to the coalmining industry, but to such industries as the iron and steel industries of Sheffield which may have to pay very heavily for one of their raw materials, namely, coal. I do not stand for cheap coal at the expense of the miners' wages. I do not think there is any Member on this side of the House who would advocate such a policy. What we are anxious about, and what we must be really careful to see, is that we are not so burdening industry that we may be put out of competition not only in home markets, but in the export markets we need so badly. That is one of my chief interests in the Bill. I have no special interest in coal and I have no particular ideas about private enterprise in coal. I do not represent the industry.
What does the hon. Member represent? Steel?
I represent many thousands of citizens in Sheffield who have to burn coal and to pay for it. That is important, and we have a right here to express our views on behalf of the people we represent. In particular, the heavy industries of Sheffield ought to be protected against any bolstering up of profits in the nationalised industry, resulting in a burden on the price of coal, which is their raw material. We have listened to many speeches about the wrongs of the industry in the past. I know there has been much wrong in the industry, but the wrongs are not on one side only. There have been wrongs on both sides. It is no good looking to the past and pointing to the wrongs on one side or the other. We now have to decide whether the Bill is good or bad. We therefore ought to come back to consideration of the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday said: "This is a great adventure." If it is an adventure, it is not bound to be successful. Not all adventures that are undertaken in this country are successful. The Bill will have many difficulties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that, I make no apology for saying that if the intentions that have been entertained should fail, and if the Bill should be a failure, I see disaster, unemployment and want at the doors of the very people whom hon. Members opposite represent. We must, therefore, be very cautious about this matter and we must be certain that we are doing the right thing tonight in passing the Second Reading of the Bill. I ask hon. Members to address their minds to that main issue. If the Bill should be a failure, the miners whom hon. Members represent will suffer untold unemployment and destitution. Not only will the miners be in that position, but the country as a whole will be at a great disadvantage in competition in the export market. We must use wise judgment and plain thinking. We must let our heads instead of our hearts control us. Many speeches to which I have listened were very sincere. I have lived in a coalmining county for 52 years and I know the miners very well. I fought alongside them during the 1914–18 war. I accept as sincere the remarks to which we have listened about hon. Members' experiences. I know many of those who have expressed those thoughts, but let us not allow those remarks to distort our reasoning, so that we pass something tonight that may have a disastrous effect upon the people whom we represent.
One or two points in the Bill struck me as extremely fair. One of them is that the Minister expects the proposed Board to fix prices and to arrange supplies of coal. The Minister has power to look into those prices and control them. My fear is that he may bolster up uneconomic coal-getting, by burdening industrial and domestic consumers for many years without detection. He says that he will not follow that policy, but only by a general outcry in the country could such a policy become generally known. I think the Minister should not have power to interfere with industrial or domestic selling prices.
Suppose the Board decided to put an uneconomic price on the major industry and the Minister, with his wider knowledge of the economic and political situation, was of opinion that that was undesirable. Would it not be good that he should have power to control the Board?
The hon. Member has put a hypothetical case. There is some substance in what he said, but there was some substance in what I said. Therefore I say that the Minister should not have authority at all. That is the first point.
My next point relates to the coke industry, which is well and efficiently run at the present time. There is a very happy feeling between employers and employees in that industry, which is giving good service and making a good profit. Not only coal but coke industries are being taken over by the Bill. They should not be separated. I had a feeling that the coke industry is being taken over and brought into nationalisation so that the profits from it can be put back into the coal industry with the result that we shall not hear very much about uneconomic coal-getting.
Is it not a fact that certain coal, iron and steel companies are supplying coke for themselves and that by charging the coal at the market value they do not share the profits that come from the by-products?
I think, Mr. Speaker—
Is that a fact, or not?
It is not. I know the hon. Member quite well. If he will listen to me I will give him an answer. I thought this point might be raised, so I took the trouble to find out how coal is allocated or supplied from the colliery to its coke ovens, and who governs the price. The position is that the price of coke transferred to colliery owned coke ovens is the one that is agreed with the men's auditors. The basis of the valuation is the price at which a similar class of coal is being sold.
After it has been sold.
It is the men's auditors who settle the price.
After it has been sold by the company to itself.
I take it that the price of the coal from the colliery to the coke oven is fixed. That is the point.
That may be the hon. Member's point, but my point is—
I am afraid I cannot give way any more. The argument was raised by another hon. Member earlier, and that is why I got out the information. Hon. Members say that the price of coal from the colliery is very often low so as to bolster up the profits of the coke ovens. That is one of the stock arguments used in the country, but it is not correct. The prices are governed by the men's auditors. I must pass on from there.
There is another issue which is very important. We are asked to pass a Bill involving an expenditure of £150,000,000, and there is a possibility of expenditure of another £150,000,000 to provide working capital, new equipment and so on. I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that this is not a small sum of money; it is a very large sum We here are the caretakers of the taxpayers' money, and we should see what the taxpayer is getting for his money, In this Bill there is not a suggestion of an estimated future for this industry. There is a certain organisation outlined, and there are suggestions that a Board is to be appointed, with sales councils for domestic, industrial and general purposes, but there is no attempt to tell the taxpayer what he is getting for his money. If a loan were being issued for this, without the restrictions of the Socialist programme, and I were asked as a sensible business man if I could advise anyone to put money into that loan, I should advise against it. I feel that tonight I should advise the taxpayers whom I represent to have nothing to do with it.
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should pay loans in compensation? It is irrelevant.
If we are going to pay £150,000,000, the taxpayer ought to know what he is going to get. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power does not tell us. It is not in the Bill at all. We Ought to be given some further information if we are asked to pass a Bill involving this sum. We ought, in justification of our own positions here, to see that there is something which the taxpayer is likely to get in the shape of some future profit from the industry. I am firmly satisfied that if a private loan were being issued for this Measure, it would not raise £2,000,000 under the scheme of unfettered investment, because there are so many things omitted. The Bill is not conspicuous for what is in it; it is conspicuous for what is not in it. There are dozens of things with which Members of this House could find fault, and could make suggestions with regard to this Bill. I say that the Government are treating the House with disrespect by not giving us at least four days for the Debate in order that every Member can satisfy his conscience as to how he decides in voting against the Bill. I repeat, that as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor has said, it is a great adventure. I say that the Bill ought to be renamed. It is the Socialists' dream of nationalisation.
7.15 p.m.
In listening this afternoon to speeches from the opposite side, I have been struck by many of the comments made. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the ex-Minister of Fuel and Power in the course of his speech commented on the system of nationalisation. Some time ago I was discussing this particular point, and a certain story was related to me. The ex-Minister asked. When nationalisation is accomplished, and the men see the same manager, the same deputies, the same faces, the same working places, etc., will they be as happy over nationalisation? My answer to that is that under this Bill the men see hope; before, they never did. Again, a number of points have been raised this afternoon, all of which were against the weight of evidence of past years in the mining industry. As a matter of fact, at the end of his speech one hon. Member went so far as to say that what we require is more discipline. The only way in which I think he could get that would be to send a few whips down the pit. We have had every other measure tried except that, and if he wants more discipline as a means of increasing output, apparently he has something similar in mind.
Many other arguments were raised, chiefly that the miners themselves have been "creeded up" for some years on the question of nationalisation, until they reached the conclusion that they must have it whether they understood it or not. But of the other point as to why the Government are pressing for nationalisation of the mining industry, very little is being said, and what is said is against the weight of evidence that we have in the mining industry. Many things have been discussed, and I do not wish to go at length into the past history of the industry but, at least, in view of the statements and the allegations which are made not directly, but indirectly, that the men themselves are responsible for lowered output, I wish to deny that emphatically, and I will try to disprove it by reference to facts. The men, looking back over history, remember the years of the last war and the end of the war, when there was the Sankey Commission. Despite all the evidence put forward in discussion, and the Report of that Commission, the party which hon. Members opposite represent ignored the findings of that Commission, or even any suggestions embodied therein. The only result was a reduction in wages, and a reduction in wages was, at that time, the only contribution made to the reorganisation of the mining industry. In 1923–24 there was a boom in the industry, when huge profits and bonuses were made. Hardly a penny piece went back into the industry, and certainly nothing went into the pockets of the miners. It was all absorbed by the coalowners, despite the fact that they knew that in Europe steps were being taken to reorganise the Continental mining industry which was then becoming a danger to this country. Despite the knowledge of what was taking place, they went forward in the old-fashioned way.
Wherever it was possible to grab something they grabbed it and made the best of it. As a result of these conditions we had a pool of over 150,000 men, and a pool of labour like that at the disposal of the coalowners could have meant anything to the mineowners if they had only had the initiative to use it. They could have enforced almost any condition they wanted, and reorganised the mines in the interests of the great thing which has been discussed so much on that side of the House—private enterprise—but no, they failed to do it. They failed so badly that in 1930 there was a Coal Mines Re-organisation Committee, and the mine-owners were again asked to get together and discuss the question of reorganisation of an industry which is of vital importance to this country. The owners, generally speaking, took no notice and things went from bad to worse. Where reorganisation did take place, it was primarily used in the direction of encouraging subsidiary industries which were working and existing at the expense of the coal industry. They were getting huge profits out of subsidiaries and losing out of mining; so much so that, seeing these developments taking place and knowing how the men in the industry were being treated, the saying went round in the mining industry that the coal owners could well afford to lose on the roundabouts because they were gaining on the coconuts. That has been the spirit of the coalowners.
Despite all these things, certain sections made attempts to reorganise and certain developments took place. What have these developments resulted in? Where developments have taken place, despite the fact that they had all this labour, longer hours, and low wages, the shortsightedness of the coalowners led them to make developments at the coal face but none in the way of being able to get away from the coal face all the coal they were able to produce under the new technical conditions. This section of the work of the mining industry has received very serious comment in the Reid Report, and some visiting American experts went so far as to say that it was a sheer waste of manpower to develop the coal face and leave the haulage system in the old-fashioned way it has been left. We have been told that young people will not go into the pits. Why? Because often enough one sees these young chaps who have to work on the roadways running about almost like lunatics trying to deal with the increased production at the coal face with an old-fashioned haulage system. Has there been any encouragement to young fellows to go into the pits and experience conditions such as those? No. Has there been any encouragement for anyone to go into an industry which has been run in such an haphazard fashion as that industry has been run?
This led us to the position that when, in 1938, this country required coal very badly, we found that the output was no better than it had been 12 years previously, despite the recommendations for reorganisation, technical application, and development generally. Along with that, we had 20 years of the rottenest conditions any industry ever had in this country. I heard one hon. Friend opposite, yesterday—I term him "friend" purposely—making comments about industry generally. Well, the area from which he came has had conditions as rotten in the area generally—I will not say in his pit—as have ever been known in this country. For 20 years these things have existed, and yet we are told today that what is wanted in the pits is more discipline. We have had intimidation, victimisation, prosecution, and all the rest of it, to try to force the men in the industry to work harder and to do everything the coal owners required of them, rather than the coalowners paying attention to their own industry and doing for it what the industry required—reorganising it on sound and promising lines.
Then the Minister is criticised for presenting a Bill on behalf of this side of the House for the nationalisation of the coal industry, and we are told that, as the miners' representatives, we do not know much about nationalisation. We know this much, that coal is the most important raw product this country has, and if the coalmining industry turns out to be an utter fiasco, the rest of industry will follow suit very quickly. We also know that the coal in this country is the best that the world can produce, an asset in itself, if the great mining industry had only realised it. We also know that coal, properly treated, can give almost untold wealth to this country—a source of wealth as yet almost untapped. And apparently it is left to a Labour Government, the Members of which have had drummed into them the ideals of nationalisation, to take this product and use it as it should be used. We are not ashamed of having had the ideals of nationalisation drummed into us because we have experienced the rottenness, the inefficiency, and the inability of private enterprise in the coal mines. We are prepared, under nationalisation, to take on the coal mines, to reorganise them efficiently, not on behalf of private enterprise and private profit, but on behalf of the country generally.
We intend under this Bill to use coal as a national asset. We intend, as the plans progress, to get every ounce of energy and value that can be extracted from coal. I am hoping that the Minister will see his way clear before long to take over every subsidiary of the mining industry that has been developed at the expense of the industry. When we come to the question of compensation, I am tempted, as was the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) to say, "I am not so anxious about whether enough is being paid; what I am anxious about is whether we shall pay them as much as the Bill seems to be giving them." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew the mining industry inside out, knew how the mining industry generally makes most of its expensive developments at times of national crisis, when it can build offices, instal new plant, get huge amounts of steel, machinery and other things into its stocks, as has been the experience during this war, apparently preparing for the time when controls will be lifted, buying the best houses obtainable in the mining area for officials to live in—if, I say, all those things were investigated, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of wanting to be generous to the mining industry, might be tempted to apply for a little of the money that has been spent in certain directions and which could have been saved and diverted in another direction.
I am not too happy about the provisions for finance in the Bill. I would like the organisation which is dealing with the finance to go strictly into the pros and cons and deal with the matter on a fair basis. The industry is so important to this country that we cannot afford to neglect it one minute longer. We have to use this asset in the best way, in a way that is going to give the country one hundred per cent. service. We have to make it an industry of national value, in order that miners, consumers, and the rest of the people will be able to regard it as a real national asset.
7.31 p.m.
It is not only my privilege but a very great personal pleasure to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling) on his maiden speech. Not only is he, like myself, a Yorkshireman representing a Yorkshire constituency, but he is a very close neighbour of mine. I well remember when he soundly beat me at a county council election but at that time I little thought that 18 years would pass before I should have the great pleasure of congratulating him on a maiden speech in this House. Whilst all of us do not necessarily agree with all that the hon. Member has said, I am sure everyone will agree that the manner in which he has presented his case was so attractive, that we shall look forward in the future to hearing him not only on mining problems but on many other problems. I am afraid I cannot claim to have the intimate knowledge of the mining industry possessed by so many hon. Members who have spoken. I am not even a shareholder in a colliery company, and certainly not a director, but I happen to live in a mining district and one cannot live in any district for 20 years without learning a good deal about the local industry. There is a great deal of truth in the saying that the outsider sees most of the game.
We have been told by the Minister of Fuel and Power that this is a Bill which is going to improve the condition of the miners. I am by no means satisfied that it will, in fact, improve their condition. We have heard in an excellent maiden speech from another Yorkshire Member, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. David Griffiths), criticisms of the present organisation of the industry. He told us that very often when miners' leaders go to the management on a deputation, the manager, because he has not the necessary authority, has to go to the board of directors and sometimes there is a delay of three weeks before a decision is reached. I am prepared to concede that point although I find that whilst the general public read of disputes in the newspapers from time to time, they seldom hear of the many little difficulties and problems which the men's leaders put before the managers and which are settled in a very few minutes round a table, and often cemented by a pint of beer in the local pub. Under nationalisation, where the State is going to be a very much less sympathetic employer than any Board of Directors, however bad that Board might be, I believe a good deal of the freedom of the miner is going to be lost. I am not going to suggest that the miner has always had a 100 per cent. square deal in the past, but he is certainly going to get much less of a square deal in the future.
For four years I had the honour of holding a responsible position in a Government Department which, because of the necessities of war, had completely nationalised every individual trader and many groups of branches connected with the meat and livestock industry. It was necessary during the war. In the same way as the Minister of Fuel and Power is going to rope in experts under this Bill, we roped in all the butchers, wholesalers and importers, all the men who really knew their job. But, obviously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was interested in the operation of the livestock control, and there had to be a certain number of permanent and temporary civil servants in the control. Although we had all these knowledgeable men, no one at a reasonable level could ever make an important decision, and if a group of butchers came to see me—I was the area controller—and asked for a decision I had to say that I was sorry, but, as the matter was important, I must refer it to the Minister. The result was that the butchers were never able to see the boss. In just the same way, whereas under the present system, however bad it may be, justice appears to be done and miners' leaders can go and see the boss, in future they are never going to see the boss.
For years the miners have been led to believe that if only the industry were nationalised, they would get jam today, tomorrow and every other day. I believe that when this Bill becomes an Act and its operations are seen in practice, the miners will realise that they, have been deluded. I never decided with a clearer conscience to go into the Lobby to vote against a Bill, because I believe the very objectives claimed for this Bill—betterment of the conditions of the miner—are not going to be fulfilled.
7.39 p.m.
It is indeed a great privilege to me to have the opportunity of supporting this Bill. It is a privilege for two reasons. The first is that I was born and bred in the colliery slums of North Wales, where we had bread, often no butter, but seldom did we have jam; and, secondly, in my constituency there are the large majority of the mineworkers of Kent.
The history of the mining industry of this country is admitted on all sides to have been deplorable and inhuman. We have heard of the efficiency of the mines. In my day miners had to walk anything up to a distance of four to five miles on the surface, and probably a similar distance underground, before they got to the coal face. If hon. Members opposite had had to do that they would think that they had done a day's work before even taking on the job of getting the coal. Miners are noted for being sportsmen, but their families are still suffering today as a result of the semi-starvation imposed upon them by public opinion created and inspired by the Tory Party and its Press. Many families in Kent today are suffering from the malnutrition which they had to undergo in the distressed areas in South Wales. Miners may forgive that action, but I do not think that they can be expected to forget. Those patriots who rushed in to replace the strikers in the great strike of 1926, misguided by a spirit of patriotism, should realise that they caused the miners and their families unpardonable distress and suffering from which it has taken them many years to recover.
I think it has been said that the ideal public man—and no doubt it was a cynic who said it—was. 10 per cent. public interest and 90 per cent. personal interest. I can only assume that this is the attitude of mind which the Opposition brings to bear on a matter of such importance as the nationalisation of one of the country's basic industries. I have been asked to explain on several occasions what I mean by public interest. My conception may be wrong, but of the first three essentials in this nationalisation scheme, first should come the interests of the workers, then the interests of the consumers in industry, and thirdly the interests of the general public. We do not know the constitution of the proposed Board, and perhaps it is just as well at this stage that its constitution is not known. I would like to suggest to the Minister that there are a number of experts he could retain, but I should be the last to advocate cluttering up either the national, regional or local Boards with a body of experts This problem needs much more serious treatment. We have heard a good deal about the economics of the mining industry. We have heard some of the humanitarian problems from this side of the House, but I feel that the position in which the miners find themselves and in which the country finds itself is both desperate and urgent. In order that any wise body of men should steer this industry through the difficult course which it has to face in the years to come, we want not necessarily experts as such, but men of character, sound judgment, sympathetic understanding of human problems, and last, but by no means least, of faith in the justice of the cause in which they are being called upon to participate.
We have heard of the supermen in the £10,000 a year class and upwards. I hope the Minister will not be hoodwinked, as many people are in judging the abilities, of business executives by the amount of their salary. It is not a difficult matter to build up any average or even a below-average person into the £10,000 or £15,000 a year class by judicious self-publicity. I suggest that, with regard to compensation, the word is a misnomer. We are not giving the mineowners compensation. We are presenting them, whatever the amount may be, with what is, in fact, a gratuity, a gratuity which, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmonth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) mentioned, would mean that the coalowners would sit back in honourable retirement and would be outside the picture. I am not at all sure, however, from what I hear that the coalowners and the top administrators are going to sit back, or that they intend to face honourable retirement. On the other hand, I think there is great activity amongst them to see if they can hold on for all they are worth, to claim whatever they can under the nationalisation scheme.
We are agreed that this scheme will give protection to the consumer. At the same time, while accepting the Minister's assurance that the workers are to have active consultation, and, I hope, direct participation in the administration of the mines, I personally would like to defer judgment on this until we know a little more about the idea. I am disturbed, however, about the terms of reference in connection with the tribunal, and particularly about the tribunal itself. We hart an example from an hon. Member opposite a few minutes ago when he talked about the £150,000,000 loan. The talk about experts as such, in the capacity of looking at the possibility of what a willing buyer would pay for the coalmining industry, is purely hypothetical, and the talk with regard to the global figure is, I feel sure, also hypothetical.
I would suggest to the Minister that, as an addendum to the reference to the tribunal, the basis of compensation—that is the basis upon which the good-will will be developed for arrival at the global figure—I would suggest to him that contrary to all normal procedure there is indeed very little goodwill in the mining industry, as we know it to-day. For the tribunal to value that as a going concern would put the amount of compensation far above all figures which could possibly be interpreted as reasonable. I would suggest, on the contrary, that the Minister might consider advising the tribunal, in its terms of reference, to consider the industry not as a going concern but as a dying industry It is admitted on both sides of the House that it is a dying industry. We cannot possibly, in any administration, whether it is nationalisation or so-called private enterprise, get the workmen into the mines under the present or past rates of wages or conditions of work.
Our friends opposite admit the force of the law of economic supply and demand. When it comes to materials they are ready to expound that cause, but I think they must on this occasion realise that it is that very economic law which is preventing, and which will continue to prevent, possibly for another generation, the attainment of conditions in the mining industry which will be adequate to attract mining workers. No B.B.C. publicity, no other publicity, no fast salesmanship will do it. A first charge on the nationalisation of industry should be improved conditions for mine workers, not only in the interest of the miners, but in the interests of the industry, and, particularly, in the interests of the industries of the country as a whole. In closing, I would like to refer to the Mining Association's agreement, or suggested agreement, with regard to what has taken place. I think it was someone who said, "Drying a woman's tears is a most dangerous occupation for any man." I am sure my suggestion will not be misinterpreted when I apply that to us dealing with the Mining Association.
7.55 P.m.
I was not quite sure from the very interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. J. R. Thomas) whether he was in favour of this Bill or against it. There are only two things which the Bill does. One is to set up a Board, and he seems to have some doubts as to the people who would be likely to compose the Board. The other is to set up a tribunal to purchase the assets upon certain prices, and he objected both to the tribunal and the prices. Therefore, I have hopes that before the evening is over—
I cannot admit having objected to the tribunal or the prices. I happen to know something about the basis which will govern the tribunals, and I can only say I am not happy about it.
I hope I have not misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman, but he is not happy about the Bill, nor are we.
I mentioned the tribunal. I did not really mention the Bill at all and I do not want to be misinterpreted in that way.
In that case I most unreservedly withdraw, and I hope I have not done my hon. Friend any harm or injury of any kind.
The very wide interest in, and the very deep significance of this Debate, the very large numbers of Members on both sides of the House whom we have heard, and the many Members whom we would like to have heard, both from the mining constituencies and from those who have special knowledge of mining questions, make me feel that there should certainly have been more than two days allowed for this Debate. I have listened throughout the whole of this Debate and have been deeply impressed with the sincerity, as well as the knowledge, of the speakers and their sense of responsibility on a high and important occasion. In the short time that I have available I cannot do more than recapitulate the main arguments that have been presented on both sides. I shall try to do so fairly, because to present the arguments of one's opponents, fairly may be unusual in this House, but it is not yet actually out of Order.
What is the main technical and economic argument which has been put forward in favour of nationalisation? Would it be fair to say that it was that unification of control and management will make for savings, that it will increase the margin available for distribution, in improved wages and conditions, after, of course, paying interest and sinking fund upon the purchase price; that unified selling gives the control of the market and prevents weak selling; that Government finance is necessary on a very large scale to do the big investments which are required and which are beyond private means; and, lastly, that higher output would be obtained by the large expenditure on this account that could only be made by a publicly-owned authority? I think that would not be an unfair picture of the technical and economic arguments in favour of this Bill, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) pointed out yesterday, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. D. Eccles) argued brilliantly today, have we any example in history where anybody has tried at one fell blow, one fell swoop, to take 850 separate undertakings and put them under the management of a single Board? The human factor in management is as important as the human factor all the way through the industry, and I do not believe that the task of the Board can be satisfactorily carried out under the conditions which were so admirably described in speeches which we have already heard.
Nobody envies them their task, and, it rumour be true, the applicants are singularly few. I am not against regulation and orderly production. Of course not. In my political life, I remember that the accusation against the coalowners was not that they produced too little coal, but that they produced too much, or produced it at a price too high for the market. Hence, the quota, selling schemes and restrictions on output which were applied all the time between the two wars. [ Interruption. ] I am trying to put the argument of hon. Members opposite fairly, and to put my own fairly. All this time, the main difficulty—I will come to the reasons afterwards—was the disequilibrium between supply and demand, and all the over-production in relation to demand, not in coal only but in every great primary product, was the great prewar problem in this and every other country. In point of fact, we never did solve this problem Hitler solved it. In every commodity, in every country, at the present moment, demand outruns supply. Of course, the method of destroying a great many thousands of lives and vast stores of capital equipment is an expensive method. The remedy is worse than the disease. It is rather like Charles Lamb's Chinaman, who burned down his house repeatedly to get roast pig. We are hoping not to repeat it. Even the most cynical observer of the state of our foreign relations could not absolutely rely on it.
Before the war, two main solutions were proposed, the first monetary, and the second I would call technical. Lord Keynes' economic theories made as great a revolution in thought as those of Adam Smith or Marshall. The publication of his theory of money marked an epoch in this respect. It was he who first concentrated public attention upon the importance of preserving the equilibrium between the rate of saving and the rate of investment. Largely as a result of his work and that of his disciples, this policy has become more or less commonly accepted doctrine. It was the basis of the monetary policy which lies behind the White Paper on Full Employment, product of the last Coalition Government; but, of course, it has never yet been tried. The occasion has not yet arisen. As a mere matter of curiosity, one feels almost tempted to salute a slump in order to see whether, in fact, this does work.
The second method, which was largely put into effect before the war, was the method of rationalisation of industry by orderly marketing and production and so forth, and many great industries used this weapon, not without success. But there are, of course, considerable dangers involved, especially when inefficient plants are kept in production and fully efficient mechanised plants are under producing. This is particularly true in coal, and there is always a temptation, which many hon. Members have stated in this Debate, for human reasons, to keep in full production a pit which is not efficient, rather than close it down and concentrate all production upon the more efficient pits. Incidentally, the coal-owners, who have been accused for not doing enough capital expenditure, in those 20 years between the wars—which were, admittedly, not easy years; let us hope that, 20 years after this war, they will be easier—did, in fact, in those 20 years spend £100,000,000 of capital in mechanisation. In 1920, the amount of coal cut mechanically was 13 per cent.; in 1939, 61 per cent. In 1928, the per- centage of coal conveyed mechanically was 12; in 1939, 58. It is true, and I think the point was made in the course of the Debate yesterday, that the German coalowners made perhaps even greater progress, but then, of course, they were more generously financed. They were, in fact, financed by the proceeds of the Dawes Loan in 1924, and, afterwards, by the proceeds of the Young Loan in 1930. They are singular dates, because they were both dates when a Socialist Government was in power. [ Interruption. ] In office, but not in power.
All these methods of rationalisation—these cartels, monopolies, selling schemes and so forth—have their dangers. They are dangerous in private hands; they may be still more dangerous in the hands of a Board and Minister operating under such ill-defined powers as in this Bill. Monopoly, especially a full State monopoly, must be subjected to strong and independent review and control, and, on this side of the House, we feel that that should be included in this Bill itself if we are to remove one of the worst elements in the Bill. We have repeatedly asked that question. May we have an answer? After the searching speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) yesterday, there is little more that I need say on this point.
The first weapon of control is publicity—full publicity, full statistics, full accounts, not faked accounts. Under the pitiless cross-examination of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of Fuel and Power talked a great deal, as he always has done in our Debates, wriggled a bit, squirmed a bit, and behaved not unlike, I will not say a dishonest witness, but a witness who has something to conceal from the court. After the assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I do not see in his place tonight, I cannot believe that the Government will resist Amendments in Committee to ensure that these measures are taken. If they will look at the Railway Amalgamations Act, 1921, they will see two Sections and a set of Schedules which set out the most admirable examples of what kind of accounts should be the subject of scrutiny and what scrutineers should be appointed for the purpose.
The next protection would be for the consumers, both industrial and domestic. We are to have these Consumer Councils. I repeat, as has been said so often, that if these Councils are advisory, they are nugatory; if they have semi-judicial powers, then they are important. Moreover, so far as we can discover, because we have to play about like a man with a gimlet on the Front Bench to get an answer on any subject, they are, apparently, to meet in camera and to make secret reports. Or is that not so? Can that question be answered? There must be full protection for the public as taxpayers against the hidden, as well as the open, subsidy. The ingenuity of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead found three methods of making bidden subsidies within the Clauses of this Bill, and I am quite certain that the ingenuity of the Minister, in such a sinister purpose, would be even more effective. Will it be prevented or not? Can we have an answer to that question?
Then we want protection against discrimination. Under this Bill the Board could, instructed by the Minister, sell coal at varying prices for all sorts of reasons It is just possible that trouble might develop. Subscriptions might not be coming in well and they might decide to put the screw on the co-operatives to put the price up a bit—or they might put the price down a bit. In every statutory company ever set up by this House there has always been the most strong legislation to prevent discriminatory prices and the most powerful organisations to supervise. Can we have that in the Bill? May we have an answer to that question? Do we know to what extent the Board will be subject to political pressure? After two days' debate, the position between the Board and the Minister has not yet been elucidated. Nobody can tell who exactly is going to be the boss. I have a great respect for the Minister, and I have no doubt that while he is there he will be the boss. At any rate, he has the great advantage of appointing the Board. We are not told for what term they will be appointed; there is no fixed period. Will the Minister be able to sack them at any moment? None of that is in the Bill. May we have an answer to that question?
There have been so many admirable speeches by my hon. and right hon. Friends that I will not weary the House by saying much more and thus take up more of the short time left owing to the very restricted Debate and the rather slow tempo of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. J. R Thomas). I can, of course, go ontill 9.15, and everyone will be happy, but I understand the Lord President requires three-quarters of an hour in which to make his speech. Certainly it would require more than that to answer my questions. I will not deal with exports and other subjects with which, particularly, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) in his admirable speech, and with his immense knowledge of the industry, dealt, but I want to say something about the range of the Bill. Not only is it going to deal with coal, but with coke, and, apparently, it is going to deal with the things got out of coking—timber, dyestuffs, paints, disinfectants, plastics and the rest. I am only going to ask one question about that. Will the account of the subsidiary undertakings be kept separately and published separately? I should like an answer to that question.
Finally, there is the question of finance which was the primary, powerful technical argument used in favour of the Bill by its supporters. There are two points here. It was argued that if you accept £150,000,000, it is so large a sum that it could not be raised from private sources, even with the assistance, made available by the late Government, of the I.C.F.C. and the F.C.I., to which I referred in a similar Debate. Of course, with this new assistance which the Control of Investment Bill is going to provide, there will be a new body to make advances up to £50,000,000 a year if the Chancellor wishes. I do not believe it could not be raised privately. At the present time, money is about the one commodity in the market which is not in short supply. The difficulty of the Government is to prevent people from raising loans in the market. Moreover, I do not believe that even if the cost of sinking new pits was included—to which the Chancellor quite rightly referred yesterday—it would be possible to spend anything like that amount of money in the time, either by importation or by production. I have no doubt that for certain types of mechanical appliances there will be ample capacity, but if the experience of peace is like that of war it will be found that bottlenecks will develop. There will be difficulties over certain types or pieces of machinery. There is already considerable difficulty in carrying out orders. There must be a proper plan, but who is going to make this plan? The Board will not exist until September, or until it comes into being. A whole year is to be wasted before any real contribution is made to the only solution to the problem, which is the increase of technical equipment.
I now come to the second great argument put up by the supporters of the Bill—what I would call the psychological argument. It is said the miner will never be a contented and productive worker without nationalisation. The long history of disputes and ill-will between miners and owners makes this true, but that long agitation which captured, first, the imagination of the industry, was, perhaps, largely responsible for turning the Labour movement into a Socialist movement. It is said of the miner, in the words of the old advertisement, "He won't be happy till he gets it!" But what is he to get? A piece of soap or a piece of pumice stone? This is not syndicalism, Socialism or "the mines for the miners." Compare the Bills of 1924, 1936 and 1937. Under every one of those Bills, for which the Labour Party were responsible, the miners were to obtain a large measure, of control at the centre, in the regions, and in the districts. By this Bill all they do is to exchange one set of owners for another, and rather more remote owners—what I might call the "nine bright shiners" of the Coal Board. If the miners disliked the owners, they disliked them not as individuals. On the contrary they liked them very much. They only disliked them as owners. It was an animosity, perhaps, because they owned the mines. I am not quite certain that once you have removed the buffer of the proprietors between yourselves and the miners, you will not attain some measure of this unpopularity. In that case, it will be the Minister and the Coal Board—a strange reversal. The present figures who may have received some measure of unpopularity will become popular again. The right hon. (Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) will become the two most unpopular. A Dean of Durham was once nearly thrown into the River Wear by the miners. I am happy to say that the waters of that river still flow invitingly to the sea.
Why should the miners be enthusiastic about the Bill? There is no protection for labour in it. There is nothing comparable to the statutory protection of staffs which is always insisted upon in any other compulsory amalgamation Will that be included in it? May I have an answer to that? The only thing that affects the right of the worker is contained in Clause 44. At present he has six years in which to bring an action against a present coalowner. But now that the industry is to come into the hands of the State he only has one year. He will only have one possible source of employment; he cannot change his employer. If by any chance he falls into some difficulty with his foreman or manager and loses his job, he can never go elsewhere without carrying his State dossier with him.
Many men who work for different employers will not have that opportunity. I am not saying what is the intention of the Board, but there is nothing in the Bill about profit-sharing, whether on a regional basis or otherwise. There is no protection for methods of conciliation or arbitration, and there is nothing which gives the worker a voice in the industry. Will those points be included? Perhaps we could have an answer to those questions.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would forgive me for interrupting. I want to know what I have to answer. I would like to be clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is demanding that a substantial proportion of the Board shall be manned, by a statutory direction, by representatives of the Miners' Union.
I was not putting that in my question at all. I was not asking whether there will be any representation, whether by statute or otherwise. I was asking whether the rights and conditions of employment, which have nothing to do with the representation on the Board, and the present system of conciliation and arbitration will be protected by statute. In any case, I find myself in agreement with the Socialist Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) who, in an article on 24th March, 1945, in that admirable paper "Forward," said with truth:
I pass on to what I would call the third argument that has been put forward. I have tried to deal with the technical argument and what I have called the psychological argument. What is the political argument? It is said that Ministers have a mandate for this Bill; that they have had a long battle for the nationalisation of coal; that this is the first stage in a great crusade, a milestone on the making of the Socialist State. I recognise and sympathise with all those very genuine emotions, but a mandate is permissive and not compulsory. You are not compelled to commit a folly. The Lord President is a very ingenious man, and I feel sure he will be able to find his way round these pledges like so many others. What about Palestine? The Government got a lot of votes there. What about the friendly societies? They are dodging that one. Surely, in the interests of speed, they can at least postpone getting on with this particular pledge. Do we really want a Socialist, or rather a State capitalist society? Does it conform with the traditions of the English people? It may be right in theory, but does anybody really want it in practice? I am a reader of the Conservative popular Press. I find it is the only way in which I can get, frankly expressed, the views of Socialist Members of Parliament. Reference has already been made to a particularly excellent article written by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Garry Allighan), which appeared in the Press recently. Writing on what would be the position of the trade unions in this Socialist State he said:
The Leader of the House has a very nimble wit. He is tireless in his political activities. He can lead the House all day. He can then go off and give to a suburban meeting in the evening a stop press account—and a very prejudiced one—of what happened, and then he can edit the political news columns of the "Daily Herald" before it goes to press—all this before going to bed. A great number of specific question have been asked throughout this Debate. None of them have been answered. Frankly, I thought the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was an insult to the House of Commons. He made an admirable speech on a Supply Day with regard to the Minister's estimates, but he made practically no reference to the Debate or the Bill. The only reference he made was to a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde which he misquoted and obviously misunderstood. I therefore hope when the Lord President rises he will, so far as his absence from the whole of today's Debate permits him, in addition to the agreeable banter which we get from him, answer some of the questions which have been put to him and to which the nation requires a reply.
The purpose that we all have is to increase production and to keep prices down, at least to reasonable figures. That is the acid test of whether this method succeeds or fails. Will the Minister of Fuel and Power promise us this? I believe the object which he has in view could be achieved by other methods with far less danger. We, like he, want a successful and a contented industry. We want to see it make its full contribution to the national wellbeing, of which it is at once the foundation and the prop. Without the grave risks involved in the policy of this Bill, this could certainly have been done. The recommendations of the Reid Report do not require this Bill, and we have the high authority of the author of the Report himself. The policy that should have been followed, which we put forward and which is still our policy, is the policy of compulsory amalgamations; the financing of the re-equipment by the industry itself through machinery provided by the State if necessary; a charter for the miners; the restoration of managerial responsibilities; a safeguard for the consumer through the competition between the reorganised, but proportionately much smaller groups in the industry.
That was our policy and we stand by it. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think he is still in Opposition, and fails to realise that it is the duty of the Government, at least, to expound their policy and answer questions about it. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the policy which we put forward in our pledges, and we stand by it. Upon this throw the Government are risking everything—their own future—about which we care little—and the national future, about which we care a great deal. The responsibility is theirs and theirs alone, and if it should fail their policy will certainly call forth the just censure of the people of this great nation.
8.35 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has done his best to make me as provocative, annoying and generally spiteful as he can, but—although I may not succeed—I propose to resist those evil temptations and provocations if I can. The insistence of various Opposition speakers on thinking out as many questions as possible—some of them, I agree, of importance; many of them really of no importance, some which they could have answered themselves on the face of the Bill, and the greater part of them of any substance having already been answered by previous Government spokesmen—shows that it is evidently the technique of the Opposition to avoid at all costs themselves advancing a positive and constructive policy. I do not say that the Opposition is obliged to do so; they are an Opposition, and they are perfectly entitled to oppose and attack. Nevertheless, throughout this Debate they have been unable to put forward a positive policy of their own, and they have not done it.
Some of my hon. Friends have said that they did not think the acting Leader of the Opposition had made a very good speech; some were even as rude about it as the right hon. Gentleman has been about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I said that I did not agree with my hon. Friends in being so severe with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). I said, "You must consider the circumstances in which he made the speech. His Party have no constructive policy for this industry, they have no real, practicable alternative to what the Government are aiming at, they find the Bill difficult to tear to pieces and criticise, and having regard to all these things, having regard to the wicket upon which the right hon. Gentleman was batting, I think that he made an able, clever and competent speech yesterday." I said that to my hon. Friends, and I say it to the House with all sincerity. It did not convince me or anybody else in the least but that is because the fundamentals upon which he spoke were themselves incapable of defence. The speech was all the more clever because he was able to make it a plausible one under those conditions. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, whose exposition—I hope I am impartial—was clear, confident, perfectly straightforward and honest, whether you agree with him or not, gave a clear-cut presentation of the position, and was constructive. Having regard to his temperament, which is about as combative as mine, he was, I think, a model of good conduct and clear exposition yesterday.
The Opposition are in a difficulty; they do not know what to say about what they would do. I remember once going to a committee meeting of Opposition leaders—I will not say which Opposition it was—when the Government was making some proposal, and there was discussion as to what should be done. Somebody said, "Well, oppose it, of course." Somebody else said, "That is all very fine, but what are we going to say? What is the case against it? I am not quite sure." Somebody else said, "I am not quite sure either; there is a come-back to these attacks, and the Government will be able to say this, that or the other and really roll us on the floor." This went on for some time; they wanted to oppose because that was their business, and at the same time they were apprehensive about getting a jolly good hiding if they did. Finally, some bright spark said, "Mr. Chairman, we can easily get out of this difficulty. Let us think up a lot of questions to ask, and if we only keep asking questions we need not say anything at all. The minutes and the hours will pass and all will be well." That is what has been happening from the Opposition all the time.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, on that occasion, the Government answered all the questions?
I want to be quite fair; to the best of my recollection, that Government did answer quite a number of the questions, but, also to the best of my recollection, the percentage which they answered was definitely lower than the percentage which we are answering in this Debate. This is an old trick. I have read Parliamentary reports, even before I was a Member of Parliament, in which it was perfectly clear that the Opposition did not know what line to take, so they asked questions. I do not blame the Opposition. They are in great difficulties, and if I were in their place, I would go on asking questions until this Bill receives the Royal Assent and they are no longer embarrassed by its merits.
As for the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I do not know where he is from Debate to Debate. It was said of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington that there was some doubt as to whether he had his heart in his speech or not. I ask myself the same thing about the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). He has enjoyed himself, or has done his best to do so, but I find it difficult to believe that he is really dead against the principle and the provisions of this Bill. I honestly do find it difficult to believe that that is so. Moreover, I would remind him that he blows hot and cold. Only a little while ago we had a Debate on civil aviation. What did he say then because we were going to socialise civil aviation? He said:
I ascribed that theory to the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not think so. I have only missed out two lines at the beginning of the paragraph:
"But to this plan, three assumptions have always been vital, firstly, that practical consideration should alone determine the decision in every case."
The point is, that I described this as a theory which the Government were beginning to adopt, that there should be two fields of enterprise, one public and one private.
If I may say so, either the right hon. Gentleman or I, or perhaps both of us, ought to be forgiven. But it is very difficult to know when the right hon. Gentleman is advancing views in which he believes and when he is not. He really did flirt with 40 per cent. Syndicalism during his speech tonight, and when I ask him if this is what he is advocating, he says, "No, I am only talking at large, so to speak." It is not good enough to play about with these theories and try to provoke people to demand that these public utilities should be put under a Board of interests instead of a Board of citizens carefully selected. But he does it, and really I often do not know when the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself or when, if I quote him in a further Debate, he will say, "I was not speaking for myself at all, I was trying to explain the official policy of the Labour Party." If the official policy of the Labour Party is to be expounded, I would be very grateful if he would let some of us do it, instead of putting his amateurish hand to it.
Let me consider what are the real issues, as dispassionately as I can. [ Interruption. ] Well, I have not lost my temper yet. What are the real issues which the House is facing tonight on the Second Reading of this Bill? All of us, in all Parties, would agree that this industry is of great importance to the nation. Coal—its adequate quantity and price—is a vital interest to our nation, industrially and domestically. We would all agree about that. Not only is that the case, but this industry is vital in a second sense, namely, it is what I would call a common service industry—an industry upon the efficient conduct of which depend, to no small extent, the efficiency, economy and wellbeing of a whole range of other industries, including the great bulk of private enterprise industries. Therefore it seems to me that it is the duty of Parliament—of all of us, to whatever political Party we may belong—to turn our best minds to securing that this industry is conducted in the best practicable manner.
The mining industry, as has been said, has been a field of controversy, bitterness and argument not merely for the last 50 years—I do not know whether it would be too much to say that it has been in that condition for centuries. Certainly during all my political lifetime I can remember in this industry strikes, lockouts, bitter disputes, persistent visits to the Mines Department, to No. 10, Downing Street, and to the Ministry of Labour to bring in the very political interference that hon. Gentlemen opposite are nervous about. It was all very embarrassing, no doubt, to the Governments of the day, but was understandable from the miners' point of view. All that mixture of strikes, lockouts, political pressure and the efforts of Governments to disentangle it without going to the fundamentals has been the characteristic of this industry throughout the present century. I am not saying at the moment who is right or who is wrong. We must try to get this industry away from this atmosphere of bitterness, dispute, strike, lockout and political pressure. We must try to get a self-respecting industry of which the nation can be proud and in which the men, the managements, the consumers and the technicians will all play their part for the good of the industry and of our country. That is what we must try to do.
There has been inquiry after inquiry. Lord Sankey recommended nationalisation. The miners thought the Government would do it, as, so it was alleged, they had promised to implement the report whatever it was, but they did not. Then there was the Samuel report which recommended reorganisation without nationalisation. There was the Labour Government Bill of 1930. I was a Member of that Government and must, therefore, accept my responsibility; in that minority situation, we really produced a miserable Bill which did not go to the heart of the problem at all. It was playing with it. This one goes to the heart of the, problem. We went through the war controls and the right hon. Gentleman, preceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) endeavoured by controls to stimulate the owners and the men, appointing a large number of people to control the industry. But that Tailed. Call that what you like. I beg of Members opposite never to call these mere wartime controls and regulations socialisation. These things are mere efforts to patch up capitalism. Let them be so regarded at all times.
Finally, we came to the Reid Report. That Report brought the right hon. and gallant Member the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) right up against it. It brought that Government right up against it. It brought the industry right up against it. It is true that the Reid Report did not recommend nationalisation. I should be very much surprised if the chairman of that Committee will not himself be perfectly willing to co-operate in the success of the great experiment embodied in my right hon. Friend's Bill. But he was not concerned with the politics of the matter. He was not concerned with nationalisation. This was a body of technicians—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke said himself, a body of what may be called "owners' men." For all I know they may have been so called by some of the miners in the country.
But he was right. They were owners' men, drawn from management. They were technicians, and were not concerned with political doctrine or dogma. They were solely concerned with considering the facts of this mining industry, examining, as an economical and technical proposition, what was the best thing to do with it. That was all. I do not want to go through the recommendations, like the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. We have not time. But they made a whole series of vast and important recommendations for physical changes in that industry, for complete managerial reorganisation, root and branch, changes of a technical character, which inevitably involved disturbance of ownership all over the place; and changes of management of a fundamental character. They said it was not for them to fashion the machine whereby this was to be done; but that that was for the Government of the day.
I say that one of the purposes of this Bill is to enable many of the proposals, perhaps all of them for all I know, and others like those in the Reid Report to be adopted; and in our belief they cannot be implemented without some legislation like this Bill. How are we to carry through the Reid Report and other proposals of a like constructive character without involving physical freedom of action? You cannot implement these proposals if you suddenly have to stop because you come to a mine or a seam that belongs to somebody else so that you cannot go on. You must have physical freedom of action, managerial elbowroom, technical elbowroom, so that you can get on. There must be capital—lots of capital, lots of money. I do not ask the Opposition who would provide the capital. They may want to answer and I have not time. But I ask the world at large?—[An HON. MEMBER: "The world may want to answer."]—It cannot—Who is going to provide all these many millions which the mine-owners, and the Reid Report people, and the others say is vital and essential for the re-equipment and re-organisation of this industry?
Is the private capitalist going to put millions into the British mining industry? I do not think so. I think he will be very slow coming forward. The queue will not be a long one to put money into the British mining industry. The money would have to be got from the State or be State guaranteed. What happens then? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] What would private enterprise, of which the Conservative Party is so proud, do then? It begins to get where some of it has been getting too often. It begins to join the poor law queue. It begins to feel it cannot be enterprising without having the State behind it. If the State is going to be behind it and provide the financial guarantees, then let the State own the show.
Then along came the worthy Mr. Foot, who had been an officer of the Gas Light and Coke Company, who, I am sure, was actuated by the best wishes to serve the mining industry. He produced a report. But what did his report amount to? It amounted to this, that the industry should get together and form regional combinations with certain men at the top if the industry could agree on who those choice ones should be. I doubt whether they would. They would really be industrial dictators drawn from private industry. That was the essence of the Foot Report. Technically, there was something to be said for it, though not so much as for the Reid Report. But where do you get to then? To a private monopoly without State control. Then the country is indeed in danger of a mere cartel or monopoly outside the control of the community dealing with a vital business.
The other thing would be, of course, to superimpose upon this private monopoly a whole lot of controls and regulations and officials to see that its job was done right. Is that the latest conception of the Conservative Party of the way to manage a private industry? It is not mine. If we are going to have industry run by bureaucratic regulation, we have the worst of both worlds, neither private enterprise nor State-promoted undertakings conducting the business in the public interest. That is the dilemma in which the Conservative Party finds itself.
I say that this Bill does give us the essentials that the other schemes could not give. It gives us freedom of physical action in the industry, managerial freedom; and it will give us adequate capital and finance to be at the disposal of the industry. Neither of the other schemes did so. Neither could they unless the State were to guarantee the money or unless they were to be subjected to a lot of political control.
I affirm this—I do not admit it, I affirm it—that nationalisation and public ownership must not be regarded as an end in themselves. It would be a shocking illusion to think that merely because you pass this Bill and pass the coalmining industry into the hands of a public corporation you need not worry any more. That is a small part of the business, only the beginning. Nationalisation, socialisation, public ownership are not ends in themselves; and the Socialist who imagines that is all that he has got to think about would not need to have a big brain to think that. He has to think about a lot more, and so have hon. Members opposite. As I have said, socialisation is not an end in itself. The object is to make possible the organisation of a more efficient industry, rendering more public service, and because of its efficiency and increased productivity is enabled to do progressively better for its workers. That is the aim, and to enable us to implement such things as the Reid Report, which I honestly do not believe could otherwise be implemented.
It is alleged that the structure of the instrument that the Bill is to create is wrong. In that respect, I do not agree. There have been both in the House and in the Press, particularly in "The Times" newspaper, many quotations from a book which I published in 1933 called "Socialisation and Transport." I am very grateful for the advertisement which this, if I may say so, excellent book has received. It is a great pity that it is now out of print. It was published in 1933, and I would not say that I stand by every word of it now, but I say that on the whole the doctrine of that book stands up. There was an awful lot of controversy when it was published, especially from the Labour Party. I was denounced with great vigour in many quarters. The discussion went on, and now, having had all the bricks thrown at me, I see the doctrine preserved, and it is coming right in the end. Substantially, that books stands. What is our case? We must face the fact that industries vary, and that what will be all right in the case of one industry, may be wrong in the case of another. The structure behind the Bank of England proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are materially different in many respects from the structure of this Bill under the Minister of Fuel and Power. It may be that when we come to electricity, or gas, or transport, or—if we do—iron and steel that other structures will be necessary. They all have variations. It only shows how absurd is the allegation that the Socialists want to make everything alike. That is quite untrue. There is no slavery in our mental process about these things.
What do the Opposition want? Do they want no Ministerial direction? If they want no Ministerial direction, then the National Coal Board could indeed be described as an irresponsible monopoly. They cannot have it both ways. Either they want an irresponsible monopoly, or they want a proper degree of Ministerial direction. Do they want plenty of Ministerial direction, more than we have got here? Sometimes I think they do. They have asked for some other directions as the Debate has gone on. In that case, the industry may be ruined, whoever does it. The Minister of Fuel and Power must, and I know that he will, exercise restraint in the use of the power of general direction. How foolish he would be if he did not. He knows, as well as anybody else. He is a politician and a Minister, and, if I may say so, a very capable Minister, who is doing his job very well. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members do not mind our saying a kind word to each other now and again, do they? We do not get much encouragement from the other side. My right hon. Friend will, of course, be restrained in his use of the power of direction. Things can be done otherwise. Indeed, Parliament must have the right to discuss the essentials of the management of this industry. It will debate its accounts if it wishes. Parliament will find a way. I think we all agree that if Parliament were to try to determine the meticulous details of the business, or questions to Ministers became too detailed and dealt with things not of general importance, then the danger of meticulous political interference might arise.
The question is—and the British are the people capable of solving it—that we want an adequate degree of public responsibility and public control, but we do not want meticulous political interference. Then we shall get the best of both worlds. We shall get business management, public accountability, but not meticulous political control. As a matter of fact, in a high proportion of cases the use of general direction will not be necessary at all. I see sitting on the Front Opposition bench the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the City, of London (Sir A. Duncan), formerly Minister of Supply. He was once chairman of the Central Electricity Board, a bit. of semi-Socialism done by a Conservative Government. I was Minister of Transport and incidentally the Minister who made the appointment. The right hon. Gentleman and I had a certain relationship. As a matter of fact—and I am not saying whether it was right or wrong in the circumstances of that case—there was little power of direction over the right hon. Gentleman as chairman of that Board. If there was a Question in Parliament directed to me, or if Members of Parliament said to me, "Look, Minister of Transport, we are going to start a row against the Central Electricity Board because they are doing a lot of things we do not think right, they are injuring our constituents and we are after them," what did I do? I said, "Much obliged for telling me. I will make inquiries and see if anything can be done." I then saw the right hon. Gentleman and said, "Look, there is trouble coming. I think I ought to tell you of this, because, if what they tell me is right, it would be difficult for me to defend you." He would there and 'then prove there was no truth in it, or he would go away and think about the matter, and perhaps in the light of the criticism he would put the thing right and so the complaints would end.
Sometimes the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Board was about to do something, which would cause a row and start the newspapers denouncing him and the Board, or maybe there was to be a Question in Parliament, which the Minister would have to answer. The Minister would send for him—sometimes it did happen that way—or perhaps he would come to the Minister. He would say, "We are thinking of doing so and so. There may be trouble about it, but before we do it I would like to get your mind." Why did he come and seek my mind? Because he liked seeing me? We always like seeing each other, but the main reason he came to see me was, that he wanted to know whether, if the row progressed, the Minister would defend him in Parliament. I did not give him orders, and certainly he did not give me any orders. We discussed it, and at the end of the day we sought to agree upon the sensible thing. That can be done it may be in 90 per cent. of the cases that come forward—and which could be dealt with by direction under this Bill—if the industry, the chairman and the Minister are so minded. I am perfectly sure my right hon. Friend is, and I hope that the chairman, when he is appointed, will be as sensible as the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the City of London was as Chairman of the Central Electricity Board. And may I say he was a very good chairman, too.
There are certain essentials of success. One thing is that the more we socialise industries the more and not less need there will be for us to cultivate individuality and brains, particularly in the economic and industrial spheres. In this mining industry there is a great need not for less individuality, but for more. We need more big, bright industrial leaders not fewer. One of the problems of modern British industry—and it affects some other countries as well—is that we must evolve competent managerial people for the industries of our country. That is a common need whether industry be private or public, and I say again that the more we socialise it will not be because we can do without less individuality, less character and less initiative, because we want more as time goes on. We are all agreed about that, so that is final. [ Interruption. ]The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has got all worked up again. I like the Noble Lord, and I get on very well with him. Secondly, it is not enough to socialise only the physical assets of an industry.
Hear, hear.
I fear the Noble Lord is trying to be discourteous. We must also socialise the best industrial brains of our industries and get them devoted to the public service. If we do not, we shall fail. All of us, especially on this side, must advocate courses to that end. But in this coal industry, we have special, peculiar, psychological difficulties. The owners, it will surely be admitted, have traditionally been among the most stodgy and reactionary in British industries. The technicians in this industry have been better men, the employed managers in this industry have been better men, but they have been denied by the nature and the character of the ownership, freedom of initiative and elbow room in management. It is said that the miner has many faults. He has faults—so have we all. But let us look at the miner and try to understand him. He has faults, but let us try to find out why. Let us think of his background. For years and years he fought with bitterness for elementary justice. He was regarded in earlier days as a brute. There were poor methods in the industry and a lack of mechanisation—and we shall need that.
The minefields themselves were ugly and dirty. Baths did not come for a long time. The mining villages are often ugly and dreary. One of the reasons the miner does not too much care how much he earns is that it is a bit of a job to spend it in the village in which he lives. Housing is bad. The miner is a solitary. He works in the mine; his physical conditions are bad, and his surroundings are bad. The trouble with the miner has been that he has felt that the hand of the rest of society has been against him. That is the disease. That is the fundamental trouble. All these characteristics, qualities and history went to the making of the British miner. It is
not a wonder that he has faults. I often think it is a wonder that he is as good a chap as he is—and Heaven knows he has good qualities.
But having said that, I would say to the miner that now the new chapter begins, and that is all it is doing. It is beginning, and we have a lot of work to do—the miners, the managements, and the rest of us. The managements and the miners in the main will decide whether this new and hopeful chapter is to end well or ill. If the managements and the miners do not rise to the occasion, I admit this experiment will go smash. Therefore, I appeal to all of them, miners and managements; and particularly to the miners I would say, emancipate yourselves from the understandable inhibitions created by the past, emancipate yourselves from the mentality thrust upon you by a crude capitalism. This is vital, this is essential, if this socialised industry is to take with it miners and managements, to become co-operators and partners in a great and worthy adventure for the common good. That is the spirit in which we approach the problems of this industry. I ask the House to give this Bill a decided and emphatic majority, so that the State, the people, management and workers, can join together to open up a finer and brighter chapter in this, one of our greatest British industries.
rose —
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 359; Noes, 182.
Division No. 64.] AYES. [9.15 p.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Baird, Capt. J. Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Adamson, Mrs J. L. Balfour, A. Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Barstow, P. G Binns, J. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bartlett, V. Blackburn, Capt. A. R. Alpass, J. H. Barton, C. Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Battley, J. R. Blyton, W. R. Attewell, H. C. Bechervaise, A. E. Boardman, H. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Belcher, J. W. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Austin, H. L. Bellenger, F. J. Bowen, R. Ayles, W. H. Benson, G. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Ayrton Gould, Mrs B. Berry, H. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Bacon, Miss A. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Brook, D. (Halifax) Gunter, Capt. R. J. Medland, H. M. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Guy, W. H. Messer, F. Brown, George (Belper) Haire, Flt. Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Middleton, Mrs. L. Brown, T J. (Ince) Hale, Leslie Mikardo, Ian Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Buchanan, G. Hamilton, Lieut. Col. R. Monslow, W. Burden, T. W. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Montague, F. Burke, W. A. Hardman, D. R. Moody, A. S. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hardy, E. A. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morley, R. Chamberlain, R. A. Haworth, J. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Champion, A. J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Chater, D. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Herbert, Sir A. P. Mort, D. L. Clitherow, Dr. R. Herbison, Miss M. Moyle, A. Cluse, W. S. Hewitson, Capt. M. Murray, J. D. Cobb, F. A. Hicks, G. Nally, W. Cocks, F. S. Hobson, C. R. Naylor, T. E. Coldrick, W. Holman, P. Neal, H. (Claycross) Collick, P. Horabin, T. L. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Collindridge, F. House, G. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Collins, V. J. Hoy, J. Noel-Buxton, Lady Colman, Miss G M. Hubbard, T. O'Brien, T. Comyns, Dr. L. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Oldfield, W. H. Cooper, Wing-Comdr G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oliver, G. H. Corlett, Dr. J. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Orbach, M. Cove, W. G. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paget, R. T. Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Crossman, R. H. S. Irving, W. J. Palmer, A. M. F. Daggar, G. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pargiter, G. A. Daines, P. Janner, B. Parker, J. Dalton, Rt. Hon H. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Davies, Clement (Montgomery) John, W. Paton, J. (Norwich) Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Pearson, A. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Peart, Capt. T. F. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Keenan, W. Perrins, W. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kendall, W. D. Piratin, P. Deer, G. Kenyon, C. Popplewell, E. Delargy, Captain H. J. Key, C. W. Porter, E. (Warrington) Diamond, J. King, E. M. Pritt, D. N. Dobbie, W. Kinghorn, Sq.-Ldr. E. Proctor, W. T. Donovan, T. Kinley, J. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Douglas, F. C. R. Kirkwood, D. Randall, H. E. Driberg, T. E. N. Lang, G. Ranger, J. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lavers, S. Rankin, J. Dumpleton, C. W. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Rees-Williams Lt.-Col D. R. Durbin, E. F. M. Lee, F. (Hulme) Reeves, J. Dye, S. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Reid, T. (Swindon) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Leonard, W. Rhodes, H. Edelman, M. Leslie, J. R. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Lever, FI. Off. N. H. Robens, A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Levy, B. W. Roberts, Sq -Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Evans, E (Lowestoft) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Ewart, R. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Fairhurst, F. Lindgren, G. S. Rogers, G. I. R. Farthing, W. J. Lipson, D. L. Royle, C. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Lipton, Lt.-Col M. Sargood, R. Follick, M. Logan, D. G. Scott-Elliot, W. Foot, M. M. Longden, D. G. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Forman, J. C. Lyne, A. W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Foster, W. (Wigan) McAdam, W. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McAllister, G. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) McEntee, V. La T. Shurmer, P. Freeman, Peter (Newport) McGhee, H. G. Silkin, Rt Hon L. Gaitskell, H. T. N. McGovern, J. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Gallacher, W. Mack, J. D. Simmons, C. J. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Skeffington, A. M. Gibbins, J. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Gibson, C. W. McKinlay, A. S. Skinnard, F. W. Gilzean, A. Maclean, N. (Govan) Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McLeavy, F. Smith, Capt. C. (Corchester) Gooch, E. G. McNeil, H. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Goodrich, H. E. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Smith, T. (Normanton) Grenfell, D. R. Mann, Mrs. J. Snow, Capt. J. W. Grey, C. F. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Solley, L. J. Grierson, E. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Sparks, J. A. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Martin, J. H. Stamford, W. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Mayhew, C. P. Steele, T.
Stephen, C. Tolley, L. Wilkins, W. A. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen Stokes, R. R. Turner-Samuels, M. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Strachey, J. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Strauss, G. R. Usborne, Henry Williams, D. J. (Neath) Stross, Dr. B. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Stubbs, A. E. Viant, S. P. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Summerskill, Dr. Edith Wadsworth, G. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Swingler, Capt S. Walkden, E. Williamson, T. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Walker, G. H. Willis, E. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wills, Mrs. E. A. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Wilmot, Rt. Hon J. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Warbey, W. N. Wilson, J. H. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Watkins, T E. Wise, Major F. J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Watson, W. M Woodburn, A. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Weitzman, D. Woods, G. S. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Weils, W. T. (Walsall) Yates, V. F. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Thorneycroft, H (Manchester, C.) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Zilliacus, K. Thurtle, E. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Tiffany, S. Wigg, Col. G. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Timmons, J. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers Titterington, M. F. Wilkes, Maj. L.
NOES. Agnew, Comdr. P. G. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Aitken, Hon. M. Gridley, Sir A. Nutting, Anthony Amory, D. Heathcoat Grimston, R. V. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Osborne, C. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Astor, Hon. M. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Pickthorn, K. Baldwin, A. E. Haughton, S. G. Pitman, I. J. Barlow, Sir J. Head, Brig. A. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Baxter, A. B. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Prescott, W. R. S. Bennett, Sir P. Hogg, Hon. Q. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Hope, Lord J. Prior-Palmer, Brig O. Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Howard, Hon A. Raikes, H. V. Bower, N. Hulbert, N. J. Ramsay, Maj. S. Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Hurd, A. Rayner, Brig. R. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Ed'b'gh, W.) Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow. C.) Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Jarvis, Sir J. Renton, D. Bullock, Capt. M. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Roberts, H. (Handsworth) Butcher, H. W. Jennings, R. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Carson, E. Keeling, E. H. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Robinson, Wing-Cmdr. Roland Channon, H. Kingsmill, Lt-Col W. H. Ropner, Col. L. Clarke, Col. R. S. Lambert, G. Ross, Sir R. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lancaster, Col C. G. Sanderson, Sir F. Cole, T. L. Langford-Holt, J. Savory, Prof D. L. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Scott, Lord W. Cooper-Key, E. M. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Shephard, S. (Newark) Corbett, Lt.-Col. U (Ludlow) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Linstead, H. N. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smithers, Sir W. Cuthbert, W. N. Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral) Snadden, W. M. Darling, Sir W. Y. Lucas, Major Sir J. Spearman, A. C. M. Davidson, Viscountess Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Spence, Maj. H. R. De la Bere, K. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Digby, Maj. S. W. MacAndrew, Col Sir C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Macdonald. Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Studholme, H. G. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Sutcliffe, H. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Drayson, Capt. G. B. MacLeod, Capt. J. Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Drewe, C. Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold Teeling, William Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Duthie, W. S. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Eccles, D. M. Marsden, Capt. A. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Erroll, Col. F. J. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Touche, G. C. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Maude, J. C. Turton, R. H. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Mellor, Sir J. Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Molson, A. H. E. Walker-Smith, D. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Ward, Hon. G. R. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Morris-Jones, Sir H. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey) Gammans, Capt. L. D. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Wheatley, M. J. Gates, Maj. E. E. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. White, Sir D. (Fareham) George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Glossop, C. W. H. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Williams, C. (Torquay) Glyn, Sir R. Nield, B. (Chester) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. York, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Mr. James Stuart an Mr. Buchan-Hepburn Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Main Question put, and agreed to Bill accordingly read a Second time.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."
The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 356.
Division No 65. AYES 9.30 p.m. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Aitken, Hon. M. Hare, Lieut. Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Amory, D. Heathcoat Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V. Prescott, W. R. S. Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.) Haughton, S. G. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Head, Brig. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O Astor, Hon. M. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C. Raikes, H. V. Baldwin, A. E. Herbert, Sir A. P. Ramsay, Maj. S. Barlow Sir J. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Rayner, Brig. R. Baxter, A. B. Hogg, Hon. Q. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead) Bennett, Sir P. Howard, Hon S. Renton, D. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Hurd, A. Roberts, H. (Handsworth) Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Roberts, Maj. P. G (Ecclesall) Bower, N. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Jarvis, Sir J. Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Jeffreys, General Sir G. Ropner, Col. L. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G. Jennings, R. Ross, Sir R. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Keeling, E. H. Sanderson, Sir F. Bullock, Capt. M. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Savory, Prof. D. L. Butcher, H. W. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Scott, Lord W. Carson, E. Lambert, G. Shephard, S. (Newark) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Channon, H. Langford-Holt, J. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Clarke, Col. R. S. Law, Rt. Hon R. K. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Smithers, Sir W. Cole, T. L. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Snadden, W. M. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Linstead, H. N. Spearman, A. C. M. Cooper-Key, E. M. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Spence, Maj. H. R. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral) Stanley, Rt. Hen O Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon H. F. C. Lucas, Major Sir J. Stoddart-Scott, Col M. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Studholme, H. G. Crowder, Capt J. F. E. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O. Sutcliffe, H. Cuthbert, W. N. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Darling, Sir W. Y. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A (P'dd't'n, S.) Davidson, Viscountess Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Teeling, William De la Bere, R. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Digby, Maj. S. W. MacLeod, Capt. J. Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Dodds-Parker, A. D. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Thorneycroft, G. E. P. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F. Drayson, Capt G. B. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Touche, G. C. Drewe, C. Marsden, Capt. A. Turton, R. H. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. Duncan, Rt. Hn Sir A. (City of Lond) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Walker-Smith, D. Duthie, W. S. Maude, J. C. Ward, Hon. G. R. Eccles, D. M. Mellor, Sir J. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey) Erroll, Col. F. J. Molson, A. H. E. Wheatley, M. J. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Morris-Jones, Sir H. White, J. B. (Canterbury) Fox, Sqn.-Ldr Sir G. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, C. (Torquay) Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Gammans, Capt. L. D. Nield, B. (Chester) Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl Gates, Maj. E. E. Noble, Comdr A. H. P. York, C. Glossop, C. W. H. Nutting, Anthony Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Hulbert, N. J. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Glyn, Sir R. Osborne, G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Buchan-Hepburn Gridley, Sir A. Pickthorn, K. Grimston, R. V. Pitman, I. J. NOES Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Bacon, Miss A. Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Attewell, H. C. Baird, Capt. J. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Balfour, A. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Austin, H. L. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Ayles, W. H. Barstow, P. G. Alpass, J. H. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Bartlett, V.
Barton, C. Foster, W. (Wigan) McAdam, W. Battley, J. R. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McAllister, G. Bechervaise, A. E. Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) McEntee, V. La T. Belcher, J. W. Freeman, Peter (Newport) McGhee, H. G. Bellenger, F. J. Gaitskell, H. T. N. McGovern, J. Benson, G Gallacher, W. Mack, J. D. Berry, H. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Gibbins, J. McKinlay, A. S. Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) Gibson, C. W. Maclean, N. (Govan) Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Gilzean, A. McLeavy, F. Binns, J. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McNeil, H. Blackburn, Capt. A. R. Gooch, E. G. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Goodrich, H. E. Mainwaring, W. H. Blyton, W. R. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Boardman, H. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Mann, Mrs. J. Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W. Grenfell, D. R. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Bowen, R. Grey, C. F. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Grierson, E. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mayhew, C. P. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Medland, H. M. Brook, D. (Halifax) Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Messer, F. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Gunter, Capt. R. J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Brown, George (Belper) Guy, W. H. Mikardo, Ian Brown, T. J. (Ince) Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Hale, Leslie Monslow, W. Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare) Montague, F. Buchanan, G. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Moody, A. S. Burden, T. W. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Burke, W. A. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morley, R. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hardman, D. R. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Hardy, E. A. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Chamberlain, R. A. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Champion, A. J. Haworth, J. Mort, D. L. Chater, D. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Moyle, A. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Murray, J. D. Clitherow, Dr. R. Herbison Miss M. Nally, W. Cluse, W. S. Hewitson, Capt. M. Naylor, T. E. Cobb, F. A. Hicks, G. Neal, H. (Claycross) Cocks, F. S. Hobson, C. R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Coldrick, W. Holman, P. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Collick, P. Horabin, T. L. Noel-Buxton, Lady Collindridge, F. House, G. O'Brien, T. Collins, V. J. Hoy, J. Oldfield, W. H. Colman, Miss G. M. Hubbard, T. Oliver, G. H. Comyns, Dr. L. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Orbach, M. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paget, R. T. Corlett, Dr. J. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Cove, W. G. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Palmer, A. M. F. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pargiter, G. A. Crossman, R. H. S. Irving, W. J. Parker, J. Daggar, G. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Daines, P. Janner, B. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Paton, J. (Norwich) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Pearson, A. Davies, Clement (Montgomery) John, W. Peart, Capt. T. F. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Perrins, W. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Piratin, P. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Keenan, W. Popplewell, E. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kendall, W. D. Porter, E. (Warrington) Deer, G. Kenyon, C. Pritt, D. N. Delargy, Captain H. J. Key, C. W. Proctor, W. T. Diamond, J. King, E. M. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Dobbie, W. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Randall, H. E. Donovan, T. Kinley, J. Ranger, J. Douglas, F. C. R. Kirkwood, D. Rankin, J. Driberg, T. E. N. Lang, G. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lavers, S. Reeves, J. Dumpleton, C. W. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Reid, T. (Swindon) Durbin, E. F. M. Lee, F. (Hulme) Rhodes H. Dye, S. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Leonard, W. Robens, A. Edelman, M. Leslie, J. R. Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) Edwards, John (Blackburn) Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Levy, B. W. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Rogers, G. H. R. Ewart, R. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Royle, C. Fairhurst, F. Lindgren, G. S. Sargood, R. Farthing, W. J. Lipson, D. L. Scott-Elliot, W. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Follick, M. Logan, D. G. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Foot, M. M. Longden, F. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Forman J. C. Lyne, A. W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Shurmer, P. Taylor, H. B (Mansfield) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Silkin, Rt. Hon. L. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Simmons, C. J. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Skeffington, A. M. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Wigg, Colonel G. E. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Wilkes, Maj. L. Skinnard, F. W. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wilkins, W. A. Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Thorneycroft, H. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Thurtle, E. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Tiffany, S. Williams, D. J. (Neath) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Timmons, J. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Smith, T. (Normanton) Titterington, M. F. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Snow, Capt. J. W. Tolley, L. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Solley, L. J. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G. Williamson, T Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Turner-Samuels, M. Willis, E. Sparks, J. A. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Wills, Mrs. E. A. Stamford, W. Usborne, Henry Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Steele, T. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Wilson, J. H. Stephen, C. Viant, S. P. Wise, Major F. J. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Wadsworth, G. Woodburn, A. Stokes, R. R. Walkden, E. Woods, G. S. Strachey, J. Walker, G. H. Yates, V. F. Strauss, G. R. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Young, Sir R. (Newton) Stross, Dr. B. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Zilliacus, K. Stubbs, A. E. Warbey, W. N. Summerskill, Dr. Edith Watkins, T. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES Swingler, Capt. S. Watson, W. M. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers Symonds, Maj. A. L. Weitzman, D.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
Coal Industry Nationalisation [Money]
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69:
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish public ownership and control of the coal-mining industry and certain allied activities (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Act'), it is expedient to give the following authorisations, that is to say:
A. To authorise the charging on the Consolidated Fund of the principal and interest of stock to be issued under provisions of the Act for any of the following purposes, and the issuing thereout of money payments to be made under provisions of the Act for any of those purposes, that is to say:
(i) making compensation for the transfer of interests thereunder (other than interests of bodies administering central selling schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930), such compensation being, in so far as it is made in respect of value of transferred interests which is determined under the said Act to be attributable to their usefulness for activities relevant to district wages ascertainments, of an aggregate amount fixed, in accordance with terms of reference which have been agreed between the Minister of Fuel and Power (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Minister') and the Mining Association of Great Britain, by a tribunal constituted as so agreed;
(ii) making compensation in respect of increased expenses due to the severance of transferred interests from other assets;
(iii) making refunds of expenses which, in accordance with the authorisation in that
(iv) making, by way of interim income pending satisfaction of such compensation as aforesaid, additions to such compensation, or, in the case of compensation to colliery concerns or subsidiaries thereof, making, by way of interim income for two years from such date as the Minister may appoint for the transfer of interests that are to be transferred without option to the contrary, payments by reference to the profits or gains of such concerns or subsidiaries or to their output of coal disposable commercially;
(v) fulfilling any agreement made between the Treasury and the National Debt Commissioners for the exchange of Coal Commission Stock for stock of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom;
(vi) making compensation for the transfer under the Act of certain interests of bodies administering central selling schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930;
subject to provision for the making by the National Coal Board to be established under the Act of payments to the Minister by way of recouping the Crown expenses and liabilities incurred by virtue of the provisions aforesaid.
B. To authorise the issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of advances to the said Board of sums not exceeding in the aggregate, in the case of sums advanced at any time within five years from the commencement of the Act, one hundred and fifty million pounds, subject to provision for the making by the said Board of payments to the Minister of interest on such advances and in repayment thereof.
C. To authorise the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of expenses in connection with the issue, repayment and management of stock issued as aforesaid or of stock issued in exchange for any such stock; and to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing sums required in order to redeem stock issued as mentioned in this Resolution, or for the purpose of providing sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund as therein mentioned or of providing for the replacement of sums so issued, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939.
D. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of—
( a ) payments to be made as aforesaid by the said Board to the Minister; and
( b ) receipts of the Minister arising from any provision made by the Act for the transfer to him of assets of the Mining Research (Safety and Health) Endowment Fund and or property held therewith;
and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer representing such payments as aforesaid and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.
E. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Minister in the payment of—
( a ) remuneration and allowances to the members, clerks, officers and staff of consumers' councils established under the Act, and expenses of such councils;
( b ) remuneration and allowances to the members, clerks, officers and staff of valuation boards or any panel of referees established under the Act and to accountants employed for the purposes of determinations thereunder, expenses of such boards or of such a referee, and expenses of the Minister in connection with reviews by such referees;
( c ) costs incurred by any persons in, or in connection with, the ascertaining, verifying and recording of particulars of interests to be transferred under the Act and the valuation of interests transferred and their arrangement and allocation for that purpose;
( d ) costs of proceedings falling to be borne by any such valuation board or referee or by the Minister;
and of expenses incurred by the Minister of securing the prosecution by himself or others of research into methods of advancing the safety and promoting the health of persons employed in or about coal mines."—(
King's recommendation signified. )—[ Mr. Glenvil Hall. ]
Are the Government not going to give us an explanation of these proposals?
That is of course a matter for the Financial Secretary but I think it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if the Amendments were disposed of first.
I think that there should be some discussion before the Amendments are put.
I am in the hands of the Committee but logically I think the Amendments should be taken first, unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a statement.
9.45 P.m.
No discourtesy whatever is intended to the Committee, but it will be within the recollection of most of us here that the Minister himself yesterday dealt with the financial provisions of the Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also dealt at some length with them. That being so, and as there are a number of Amendments on the Paper, it was felt that the Committee would find it more convenient, in order to save time, to take the business in the order suggested by the Chairman. [ Interruption. ] We do not mind in the slightest, and therefore, with the permission of the Committee, I will make a brief statement on the Resolution with which we are now dealing. This Resolution authorises the charge on the Consolidated Fund of the principal and interest of stock to be issued under the terms of the Bill, and the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of money payments which are also issuable under the terms of the Bill. The Resolution is divided under heads A to E, and head A is divided again, under six separate paragraphs. The first provides for the compensation which falls to be paid for the assets which are to be transferred, and which are dealt with under Clause 9 of the Bill. The second paragraph deals with the compensation for severance, that is when part of the assets of a business is transferred to the Board, and part is left behind, in the hands of the present concern.
Mr. Chairman, owing to the Labour Party breaking up, I cannot hear a word that is being said.
I am sorry for the hon. Member but I think if he had been here earlier he would have found the Labour Party well in attendance. However, to continue, the third paragraph under head A provides for the capital outlay for refunds of capital expenditure which a firm or firms or company may incur between 1st August, 1945, and the date on which the particular interest is vested in the Board. The fourth paragraph deals with payments of interim income, during the time between the date of vesting in the Board and the time when the actual compensation to be paid to a particular colliery has been finally ascertained. That is dealt with, as the Committee knows, in Clause 21 of the Bill. The fifth paragraph deals with the exchange of the Coal Commission stock, which is now held by the National Debt Commissioners and which may, under the terms of this Bill, be cancelled in return for Government stock. As Members know, this is dealt with in the Financial Memorandum, and there they will see that the amount of stock under this head is roughly £70,500,000.
Then provision is made for compensation for interests of central selling schemes. As the Committee probably is aware; under some of these schemes there are large liquid assets in the hands of the authorities and there are also large stocks of coal which will or may be transferred when the vesting date comes round. Head B follows, and that deals with the authorisation of payment out of the Consolidated Fund of amounts up to £150,000,000 during the five years from the commencement of the Act. Head C authorises the charge on the Consolidated Fund of borrowings in respect of stock issues and cost of service of such stock. Head D, which is in common form, gives the Exchequer authority to receive and dispose of sums paid to the Minister. Then there are, as the Committee will see from page 4 of the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, also certain charges which will fall not on the national vote at all but upon the vote of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Those are very clearly set out in the Financial Memorandum, and I do not propose at this juncture to go through them.
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for having adopted an unusual course on this occasion in having the Resolution explained to the Committee. It is right that somebody on the Front Bench should introduce a Resolution to a Bill of this magnitude. The odd thing, in fact, is that the Financial Secretary should have done it because, having myself occupied both his post and that of Secretary for Mines, I know quite well that the normal practice is for the Minister responsible to intro- duce the Financial Resolution, and not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power has been more cunning than some of his predecessors and has been able to pass on the job to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. However we take no exception to that. The fact is we are grateful for small mercies—so grateful that somebody should have taken the trouble to say anything. The hon. Gentleman skated over some of the points in the Resolution which will no doubt have to be explored further, but there were just two questions which I would like to put to him without raising the larger issues which will undoubtedly follow. Upon what basis is the interim expenditure, which comes under A (iv) of the Money Resolution, dealing with the compensation which is to be paid in the interim period, estimated. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, of course, is a non-committal document and we would like to know on what basis is that estimated at £9,500,000, per annum for the two years from the vesting date? It would be gratifying to know on what basis that calculation of future income is made. The other question I had in mind to put to the Financial Secretary—or the right hon. Gentleman the Minister if he is going to answer—is whether, so far, there is any indication of the kind of money that so far may be involved in the refund of expenses made under A (iii) of the Resolution. That is, the refund of expenses which will have been incurred on capital account by colliery concerns, or subsidiaries thereof, since 1st August, 1945, but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us now what the total sum will be, because the period has not expired when the Bill becomes an Act. I wonder, however, if he has, so far, any information of the kind of expenditure up to now, from 1st August, 1945, when this account begins to run, or any kind of figures of the sort of expenditure involved. Those are the only two questions I want to put, as well as thanking the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Later, my right hon. Friends and I will have one or two Amendments, which we hope we may be able to move.
The Financial Secretary said he was anxious to save the time of the Committee. That is a laudable desire, but we, on this side, have what we think is an equally laudable desire—that of saving the money of the nation. The Financial Secretary also made a very curious remark when referring to other Bills of the same kind. I do not know whether he was referring to the future or the past, but if, as I presume, he was referring to the past, I cannot think of any other Bill of this kind in the history of this Committee.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph (i), which provides for a payment by way of compensation for the transfer of the interests of the colliery companies in accordance with the White Paper. The present Minister of National Insurance was put up by the Labour Party at the last Election, as being one of its leading members, to make a broadcast speech, and in that speech he said that the labour Party's policy alone would give the nation the coal it wants, and the Labour Party's policy is, of course, represented in this Financial Resolution. I suggest that that aspect is the only question in which the public of this country is really interested at all. They realise not only that we have had some difficulty this winter in keeping ourselves warm, that it is only if we can increase exports that we can provide ourselves with imports, but also, as Mr. Horner, the National Production Officer, has pointed out, that the men released from the Forces cannot be absorbed into the industry unless it produces more coal. Mr. Horner has also pointed out that the Labour Party's policy cannot be implemented without more coal. I must confess that that reason has left a good many of us on this side, and a great many people in the country, rather cold in another sense—
On a point of Order, Major Milner, is this relevant?
Perhaps the hon. Member will leave that question to the Chair.
With great respect to you, Major Milner, may I submit that the argument which the hon. Gentleman is submitting is entirely irrelevant to the Financial Resolution?
Further to that point of Order. Is not that a reflection on your conduct of the Debate, Major Milner?
The hon. Gentleman who was addressing the Committee was under my eye.
Is not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the speech of the hon. Member was out of Order, a reflection, Major Milner, upon your conduct in the Chair?
10.0 p.m.
I was doing nothing of the sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course, you were."] I was submitting for your consideration, Major Milner, an opinion which I and a great number of hon. Members on this side hold, that the hon. Member's argument is entirely irrelevant and a waste of time.
It has constantly been held that the charge of wasting time made by one hon. Member against another is out of Order, and I would call your attention, Major Milner, specifically, to the charge made by the hon. Member.
Further to that point of Order. May I say nobody wastes more time than the Noble Lord?
It is out of Order for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of motives. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will withdraw what he said.
Certainly, I will withdraw it. I am quite prepared to do so, because the hon. Gentleman was entirely unconscious of what he was doing.
I was pointing out that payment for the mines to be taken over is provided for in the first part of this Financial Resolution, and I was saying there is not the slightest doubt that, if the nationalisation of the mines under this Financial Resolution is to be any more than an empty and temporary political triumph, we must get more coal. How are we to get more coal?
That question certainly does not appear to come within the scope of the Financial Resolution.
With due respect, Major Milner, may I draw your attention—and I was just coming to it—to head B of the Financial Resolution which provides for £150 million to be placed at the dis- posal of the National Coal Board. I was going to say that there were two ways of providing more coal, one by putting more men into the mines, and the other by increasing the output per man by whatever means, including this £150 million.
Hon. Members must keep the discussion within the terms of the Financial Resolution. They are not entitled to extend their discussion to the terms of the Bill.
I was just coming to that. Mr. Horner, the National Production Officer of the Mine Workers' Union, said there was one cause, and one cause only, of the insufficient production of coal. It was the insufficiency of men in the mines. I admit that that is one reason, but not the only reason. If I am not to suggest means whereby more men can be attracted to the mines, I will go on to say that there are, perhaps, other means whereby we can persuade more men to come into the mines, and therefore—
I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat unless he keeps to the Money Resolution.
I will cut out the greater part of the remarks I had hoped to make and will come straight to head B of the Financial Resolution which provides for £150 million to be placed at the disposal of the National Coal Board. By all means increase the mechanisation, which is what this £150 million is for. I may say that mechanisation would have been improved, even if this Bill had not been introduced, but labour, efficiency and effort are just as important in mechanised as in un-mechanised mines. We all hope that nationalisation will produce greater effort by the miners, but, frankly, we do not believe it, and so we are going to vote against the Financial Resolution.
I rise to inquire if the financial provisions in the Resolution provide for the payment of compensation to persons who may be displaced as a result of this legislation. In my constituency there are a large number of people who have spent most of their lives in the mining industry—miners and others who have served on professional and technical staffs and in the clerical and administrative grades. If the reorganisation and co-ordination that we anticipate as a result of this legislation come about, it is not unlikely that at least some of the professional and technical staffs may be regarded as redundant. In view of the fact that they have spent so many years in this industry, it will be difficult for them to get a price for their labour in any other market. I observe that compensation is being given for the loss of financial assets; it is equally important that men who may be dispossessed of the opportunity of earning a livelihood should be given at least the same consideration.
I am glad to think that, so far as the miners are concerned, the problem is not likely to arise. We are so desperately short of miners that they are likely to have more work than they can do. At the same time, it is not impossible for the difficulty to occur in their lives. From the point of view of the miner, the problem may be a small one, and I hope it will be equally small for the grades I have referred to. If it is a small one it ought not to embarrass my right hon. Friend in making suitable provision. On the other hand, if it is a big problem it is all the more desirable that it should have his attention, and he should make suitable provision. If my right hon. Friend finds it possible to accept the suggestions that I am making he will not be creating a precedent. In fact, he will be following a precedent which was set in other legislation no less than 25 years ago. Since then legislation affecting other major industries has been passed and this principle has been recognised.
It is very important from the point of view of all concerned in the mining industry that compensation Clauses should be included. It may be suggested that there are in the Bill certain Clauses that imply something in the way of compensation or that Regulations will be framed to afford protection of one kind or another to those who are employed in the industry, but I suggest that a Regulation is not sufficient. This is of such paramount importance that it merits a Clause being specially drafted and included in the Bill. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter very carefully on the Committee stage. I am certain that if the problem does not arise in respect of the miners, they would have no objection to provision being made for the professional and technical staffs or the administrative grades. I have lived near miners all my life, and I have never known them deny justice to other people. Their greatest struggle has been to obtain justice for themselves, but when it has been possible for them to lend a helping hand to other people they have never refrained from doing so. I, and others with me, feel that this is a cardinal principle in legislation involving the nationalisation of major industries, namely that protective clauses should always be inserted offering compensation to those who may be deprived of their opportunity of earning a livelihood, and I think money should be found for that purpose.
I have great pleasure in supporting what the hon. Gentleman opposite has just said. There is nothing nicer for me than to see some hon. Member on the other side for once looking after the displaced persons. I am glad to have the opportunity of expressing appreciation of his interest in seeing whether this Financial Resolution is wide enough—I do not think it will be myself, but I hope it may be—to cover those people who may be pinched out. I should have done that if I had the good fortune to get in earlier. As he has done it so excellently, it will enable me to carry out what is always my wish in this House, namely, to speak as shortly as I can on this Resolution.
May I ask one or two questions about other sides of the Financial Resolution? I have been invoked by the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord President, in part of his speech when he touched on the question of finance, to take some interest in this Financial Resolution. He said that under certain circumstances—which I will not mention now—there would be lots of capital needed and lots of money. Here is the place where the House is being asked to provide, out of the taxpayers' pockets, lots of capital and lots of money for this industry. In one paragraph it comes to £150,000,000, a considerable amount of money. Before we vote in favour of giving all that money—although of course we are most trustful of the Government as far as we go, which is not very far—they ought to explain where the taxpayers' money goes. Quite often I am asked by my constituents in letters and other ways, "You voted for a Resolution for £150,000,000. Were you quite sure in the House that you knew what you were going to do with it and what you were going to get back for it?" I am not going to my constituents to tell them that when they will ask, "You are asking us to give you all this money; are we going to get cheaper coal?" That is a fair question to ask in return for their money. They find it and they have a right to know. They will say, "Are we still going to have all that slate instead of coal?" Those are questions on which we ought to have a definite assurance. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman—who looks as if he might be going to reply—if the Lord President does not come along and pinch him out of the limelight presently—would like me to go to my constituents and say that by this time next year they will have lots and lots of coal.
The next thing I want to know is this. I see that the Resolution authorises under paragraph ( d ) payment for research, a most interesting and valuable thing for all industries, and absolutely essential. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance—and I am sure he could if he wished to—that the Government have the research of this industry all planned and ready, so that within a few weeks after passing this Bill they will be able to get back into the industry those thousands of people who now do not want to go there? Without them you cannot get the supply. Will the research tell us how to get those people back, one of the most vital things in research at the present time? Nothing is more essential than that. Those are two points which he will be able to answer—at least I hope he will—because it is very awkward, as hon. Members who are new to the game will find out, when they cannot answer their constituents. I happen to have been able to do it fairly successfully for a long time
10.15 p.m.
I have a lot of people in my constituency who are very interested in trade and exports. How much of this £150 million—there may be other sums which I may have to deal with later—is being used for the encouragement of the export of coal? We are perfectly entitled to ask that. We have had a most excellent explanation of the Resolution by the Financial Secretary, better than I could have hoped to give, but he never said how much money was to be devoted to any one of the items. What is the good of having a Bill if you do not put the items in, if it is not stated what it will cost? I want to know what is to be the cost of each part to the taxpayer. That is the only way we can explain the matter to our constituents. I should be grateful if I could have those three points explained to me. I will put them again briefly, so that my hon. Friend has no excuse for not replying. I know he is overworked; that is not the case with all of them for they do not all work, although they call themselves the Labour Party.
How much of this money will go to export, how much will go to help trade, and how much will go to help provide cheap coal for industry? Those are three big things which we ought to know before we vote this money. Before I give one penny of this money to the Government I want to be dead certain that something will be done with it to improve the lot of the miners. I have a great admiration for them, I have served with them in my time, and I would entirely repudiate the suggestion that they are not worthy of being considered in a matter of this kind.
Why did not the hon. Member finish with the chorus of the "Red Flag"?
I should be out of Order, and that would be unfortunate. Naturally, I would not like to be out of Order.
I have the impression that some hon. Members have decided to go on the night-shift, and I can assure the Committee that the night shift is not popular, particularly with the ex-colliers on this side, and we have no desire to detain the Committee frivolously.
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Lady to bring up suggestions of frivolity?
The hon. Member should not interrupt the hon. Lady while she is on her feet.
But is it in Order to impute frivolity to hon. Members on this side?
Further to that point of Order. May I submit that the hon. Lady did nothing of the sort? She said she was not going to be frivolous herself.
Miss Lee.
I think this issue can be settled very easily. Hon. Members opposite have decided—they have told us—that in voting money they are primarily concerned about the welfare of the miners.
rose —
Order.
May I, with the great respect which I always exhibit towards the Chair, ask whether you will be so good as to give an answer to my question?
The hon. Member's interpretation is not correct.
I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to head B, the expenditure of £150,000,000, which we understand will be used mainly in providing up-to-date mining equipment for getting coal. I, as a representative of a mining constituency, am in a rather awkward dilemma. I know perfectly well that if I vote this £150,000,000 some of the machinery which will be bought with this money and used underground will have, among its effects, the destruction of some of the cottages in which the men who work underground live on the surface. It is a tragic position for a man working underground to find that he is destroying his own home. I would ask the Committee, to consider that many of these miners' homes, and the homes of other modest citizens in the mining community, were built at a time when we had no heavy coal-cutting machinery, and when the pit underground was not the menace to their homes that modern machinery is.
Of the money we are asked to sanction this evening, a very high proportion is going to conciliate the coalowners. Why we should be concerned with the coal-owner who is going out of the industry I do not follow. But I do not want to pursue that point. I would rather keep to the rather more substantial one, that our job is to consider how to help in the production of coal. We must not forget that the most important machine of all underground is the miner. I come of three generations of miners, and married a miner. Every time I hear men talk of the work underground they assure me that even if we spend this money on machinery and on obtaining the most up-to-date conditions, the spirit of the individual man will still be uniquely important in this job. If I sanction £150,000,000 for machines and the money is spent on keeping the machines bright, it is nothing if the men's spirits are broken. They have not family lawyers to see that all their interests are being looked after. They are not going to draw tribute from this industry after they have left it as the coalowners are going to do. Nevertheless, these little homes on the surface represent sometimes the saving of one generation. Many of them represent the savings of several generations. I say to our Minister of Fuel and Power that we who belong to mining families know the complexities of this subject. We know, as was said to me outside this House earlier today, that some of those who have the best right to compensation in this industry are dead. We can never repay them. We know that some of that property has been resold and is even being rack-rented. We know all these complications.
I issue a challenge to this House. We are seeking to persuade the coalminer that there is justice in this land and not just cold legality. While we are concerned to pay Danegeld to coalowners and to provide money for new machinery underground, we shall do well to remember, as the Leader of the House said earlier, that the miner has felt again and again that the hand of society is against him. It will be a sad day for this Committee and for this Government if ever the miners feel that a Labour Government do not fully understand their point of view. I say to this Committee—and I am sure that I am saying what every one of my mining colleagues would endorse—that their sense of justice, equity and fair play is such that we cannot go back to the mining communities and say that we have walked through the lobbies of the House of Commons, voted £150,000,000 for new machinery, and voted for the establishment of a committee to give compensation to the coalowners, but that what we have failed to do, what has been beyond our wits to do, is to draft a Resolution that will safeguard the men who are to have their houses over the pits pulled down, and who have no legal protection and no legal contract. There would be no point in putting this case if the men could simply go to a court of law. Some have protection in law and some have no protection in law. Therefore I submit that a more substantial point could not be made if what we want is coal, because we get the coal from the colliers and we will only get them to produce coal if they feel they are being truly and fairly represented and that their interests have been properly looked after.
I would beg my right hon. Friend not to tell me that it is impossible to bring my claim within this Bill, and not to tell me that later legislation will deal with this, because we know perfectly that the House has a timetable. I cannot go back to intelligent miners and say that later legislation will deal with this because they know, as well as I do, that there will be no time in this House, for so long ahead as we can see, for new legislation. I would ask my right hon. Friend so to interpret and reframe this Bill that we can set up commissions for our mining districts. Some of us are well able to guide the Minister in this matter and to see that he is not taken advantage of in dealing with claims which genuinely concern the homes of working people which are being destroyed at the coal pits and which will be still further destroyed by the introduction of this up-to-date machinery in the pits. I am appealing for the protection of the miners who have homes on the surface of these pits, so that they may feel happier and that the success of this Measure may be assured.
With many of my colleagues, I have been listening all day, hoping that someone from the opposite benches would show some courage and spirit of criticism of the various proposals that have been put forward. We have had to wait until the Financial Resolution for any spirit of criticism whatever from the tame sheep on the other side, and I congratulate most heartily the hon. Lady who has just sat down and the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) on the forthright and courageous criticism which they have ventured to make for the first time from those benches today on the very scandalous fact that there is no provision whatever in the Financial Resolution for compensation for redundant and displaced people who work in the mines. Representations were repeatedly made by the coalowners on this very point in the discussions that have been going on for many months. In spite of those representations that, whatever was done, provision must be made to give ample and generous compensation for displaced and redundant members of the staff, it is obvious from reading the Financial Resolution that there is no provision made for them. They have been ignored and excluded, and I am delighted that this criticism should have originated from the other side.
10.30 p.m
These financial provisions for this, the first great measure of nationalisation are supposed to be the prototype of the future. We have got to go through this kind of hell again and again, and here is the kind of thing we have to expect for the future. After all, a Bill of this nature should contain some provisions and should show some sympathetic consideration to those redundant miners who would have to be transferred. This is the first example of nationalisation in a big way, and yet that most important matter, the human element, has been entirely ignored. In the Transport Bill in connection with the transfer of transport people definite arrangements were made in that connection, and it was the same in connection with the railways.
At the same time, when we are considering these Financial Resolutions, it is just as well that the first real criticism should come from the opposite side of the Committee. I have spent some time talking to miners about the Bill, and about its provisions, and have been concentrating to some extent on the financial side, and I gathered that the miners were more or less ignorant about what it meant. They had no idea of what it was going to cost, of what the cost was going to be to the taxpayer, or what the cost would be to the nation as a whole, and indeed, neither has the Minister, nor has this Committee. We are being told nothing.
All these figures produce is something about £150,000,000 to be spent over five years for one specific side of expenditure. But there are many other items of expenditure totalling enormous sums of which no details are given, and yet the nation is being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and not only to undertake the vast items involved in the Bill, but an enormous national expenditure of which no details have been divulged to them. Never has any Bill of a major character been presented to this House before with so little financial information about it. It is an insult to the intelligence of the country and to the House, and it is a gross travesty of democracy, and in my opinion it is most typical of the tyrannical attitude of the other side of the House to have given us two days for a Second Reading, and then, when the Financial Resolution comes up, to insult the House with the meagre details about this vast expenditure.
To discuss such an action without strong language would indeed be weak-mindedness on our part. We are told so often on this side of the Committee that we are the tools of vested interests. [ Interruption. ] How they love that phrase. But, in fact, on this occasion, it is the party on this side of the House that is fighting the principles involved in the Bill, and it is the vested interests of the coalowners who have become weak and have fallen down by the wayside. We are going on, right through the fight, because this time we are fighting for the industry, and for the miners particularly. [ Interruption. ] I went down to South Ayrshire recently and had a talk with the miners there, and they were, of course, very interested in this nationalization proposition. I never have seen such a miserable looking lot of men. They should instead have been indulging in a triumphant march, because at long last all they had been working for and fighting for for three decades had at last come to pass. I asked them repeatedly if one of them would get up at the meeting and say what they would get out of these proposals, and not one of them could get up and say that there was any advantage, and, in fact, I took some time in explaining to them why they could not get up and say that there was any advantage at all.
On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Debate?
I should have thought that the point of Order had already been cleared up.
Surely, Major Milner, while I thank you for that Ruling, the fact that the country is going to be asked to spend vast sums of money as a result of these proposals is a matter of very great moment and very much in Order. I do not propose to detain the Committee any longer, though there is no question about it, that there is ample scope for long discussion and for the greatest indignation not only from representatives of the people on this side of the Committee, but by criticism from the other side. Now that it has begun, let it continue. Let them show some courage and guts. There are no real, material advantages to the miners from this Bill. They are bitterly disappointed with the proposals. Enormous sum of the taxpayers' money are involved. It is a travesty of what it should be and I am disgusted that the Financial Secretary should have fobbed us off with a few words which I doubt if he understood. The only figure which has been given to us is the sum of £150,000,000, and I imagine that the total figure involved will be well over double that sum in the next five years.
I note that there are some assets to be transferred to the Minister which he will receive from the Miners' Safety and Health Endowment Fund, and property associated with it, and it is apparent that the Minister will take over these particular functions and spend money in order to safeguard the workers under his direction. I should like to tell him, and I feel that I am to some extent pushing at an open door, that he should not over-centralise his research, and that, secondly, he should spend as much money as possible out of whatever funds he accumulates on the research. It has been estimated by some people that at least £3,000,000 a year will be needed if the research is to be well conducted and sufficiently done. I would like to point out to the Committee that research needs money not only for the furnishing of the industry itself or the improvement of the technical machinery, but for an investigation into the whole of the conditions of the environment of the miner when he is at work.
Earlier on it was said in the Debate by the Minister himself that an improvement in the amenities of the miner's life must to some extent be contingent upon an improvement in production. It is with respect that I would like to point out another and slightly different point of view. The best and most considered opinion in America puts it in this way. If wages are high, production costs can only be brought down by improving the conditions under which the miner works. That is very apparent and almost a truism, for if those conditions are not, by research and careful consideration of environment, made as perfect as possible, then ultimately, production must fall. We have seen examples of this for at least one generation. Expenditure of some, or part of these sums upon research connected with the personal environment of the miner must entail looking carefully at industrial disease and accidents at work. There has been a considerable flight away from coalmining. Some of it has been justified and some of it has tended to be exaggerated through false ideas in reference to certain aspects of industrial disease. The miner is addicted to—
The hon. Member is dealing with a matter of detail very much removed from the matter under discussion.
Will the hon. Member not admit, in justification of the Government Department concerned, that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has effected great improvements?
I agree that a great deal of work has been done, much of it in North Staffordshire the area from which I come, and results have been excellent, but they have not yet been universally applied. A further answer to that question would be to urge on the Minister to take upon himself power to see that recommendations that we know—and I am sure that the Noble Lord appreciates this fully—are beneficent shall be carried out through all the coalfields in every direction. I do not want to go into details about matters which may bring me a rebuke from the Chair and I will conclude by saying this, that the particular afflictions to which miners are exposed can be remedied. The remedy is already today at hand and there is no need for the miner to feel that as a result of research he will not receive such benefit as will give him an opportunity to live his life very much more normally in future than in the past. The miner does not want our compensation; he simply wants a guarantee that he can do his work and live his life as fully and reasonably as possible.
One of the points I wish to raise is that very important matter of compensation of staff. I know that the Minister did not reply on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I could not expect him to. But I think this is probably the proper place to raise it and also to ask whether attention will be paid to the many pension schemes of various types into which the men have entered. Very often when an industry is taken over, men have reached retirement age and are quite unable to find other employment. When the amalgamation of the railways took place in 1921, that was one of the most important points raised, and it seems strange that it does not find a place in the Bill itself. I am sure the Minister realises the importance of it, when there are some thousands of men concerned, and I think we must, too. It does seem to me, if the Government are anxious to recruit to the administrative and commercial and technical sides of the industry, it is important to make provision for this.
There are three schemes of annuities, each on a superannuation basis. We take a great deal of time in working out an appropriate compensation on a proper scheme; but I wonder whether the Minister would be agreeable to considering compensation for staff on a regional basis, because conditions vary so much in different parts of the country. No doubt the Financial Secretary or the Minister will be able to give us an assurance on this matter. There is one other matter to which I would like to ask him to give attention. That is the question of subsidence which the hon. Lady opposite raised. It is a matter of concern not only to local authorities and to residents in houses, but I do not know whether it is realised that enormous stocks of coal have had to be "frozen," and cannot be worked—compensation coal, it is called—to enable railway tracks and roads to continue to be used.
10.45 p.m.
There is an enormous amount of case law on this matter, but I do not think there is any mention of it in the financial provisions, and I would like to know whether any of this £150 million will be acquired, as the hon. Lady suggested, to compensate individuals whose houses are affected by subsidence, and also whether it will be used in the case of roads, bridges, and canals, which are likely to be very much more affected by the machinery that is installed. Incidentally, I do not think there is any reason to suppose that the machinery will be supplied so quickly that there will not be time for the Government to go carefully into this matter and announce their decision before we conclude our deliberations on this Bill and the House passes it finally.
The hon. Gentleman opposite raised just now the question of research. I beg of him to consider one matter in regard to research. I do not know whether he has studied what has been done in South Africa to attract your men to study different aspects of deep mining, but some of the mines there are of a terrific depth, and the heat is very great. As I understand the Minister in his original statement, he contemplates having to sink shafts to work very deep seams in this country or, rather, deep seams in comparison with what we have now. I wonder whether somebody will be able to explain whether there will be any cooperation between mining in different parts of the Empire, and in the world, to assist in the research, because it is of the utmost importance not only from the point of view of the health of the miners, but also from the technical point of view. There are many ways of sinking a shaft, and nobody knows that better than the Minister. There is some form of "freezing the ground" as one goes down. Matters like this can be brought out in educational lectures through the medium of the Department of the right hon. Lady the Minister of Education. I believe it can be made sufficiently attractive in schools throughout the country to recruit more people to this industry in the future. It is essential, no matter under what system the mines are worked, that we should attract to it keen boys, and people who are scientifically minded, and we should give them every opportunity. Let there be lecturers to go round to do that and, if this can be paid for—as I take it, it will—by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the financial provisions of the Bill, he will do a great deal to attract to the industry keen boys and young men to take scholarships at Universities, and so on. I see absolutely nothing in the Financial Resolution to give us any hope that any of these three points are to be considered.
I was very interested to listen to the potential members of the Miners' Union from the other side. I hope some day we see them participating in the production of coal and, from the ranks of the Federation, making the sort of speeches they are making tonight. In the meantime, as the Members on the other side are free to talk about the miners, maybe I will say a word or two about the mineowners. Before coming to that I would just refer to this question of subsidence. My constituency has had roads and railways affected as well as houses. I hope part of this money will be used for the purpose of "stowing the redd." It will prevent subsidence and stop the piling up of ugly bings in the countryside. The Resolution talks about the arrangements made between the Minister and the Mining Association in connection with compensation fixed by a tribunal. It is the one place in the Bill itself where we shall have to make an Amendment. I will not deal with the Clause, but with the matter as presented in the introduction. It says:
"Compensation is to be made in respect of the transfer of the assets to the Board. The compensation is to be ascertained separately in respect of:—
( a ) the assets of the coal industry as defined for the purpose of the District Wages Ascertainments for regulating wages in that industry."
I am of opinion that consideration should be given as to how much the mine-owners have already taken out of the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are all Liberals."] They have taken far more out of the industry than they have put into it. The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was time to bring an end to the Nelson pension.
That question does not arise on the Financial Resolution.
I was giving an illustration. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) said that, as a result of this Bill, whereas the miners will still be toiling down the pits, the mineowners will be sitting back doing nothing and drawing their interest. But he did not add that when the mineowners died their sons, and their sons after them, would still sit back and draw the interest.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really has any confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
We will come to that in a moment. I merely mention that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is against perpetual pensions, and the proposal here is to provide such pensions for the mineowners in exchange for no service of any kind.
Does the hon. Gentleman believe in confiscation or compensation?
I am talking about this particular industry. Everybody has agreed that the mineowners have taken far more out of the industry than they have put into it and, as a consequence, the industry is in a state of decay.
Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
What have the mineowners been doing with the millions of pounds they have taken out of the industry? Has the money been going back into the industry? No; year after year they have taken the profits out of the industry and left the industry in neglect. There cannot be compensation for that kind of thing. It is sheer impudence to suggest it. I do not say the mineowners should be sent to the P.A.C., but I challenge any hon. Member on the other side to go with me to any constituency and talk to any intelligent people—not necessarily miners. They can be found even in Cambridge. There is not an hon. Member on the other side who could justify any further compensation to the mineowners than that which I now suggest the Minister, under this Financial Resolution, should allow to them—a life annuity which dies with them. That is the most that the mineowners should expect, and the most that they should get.
rose —
On a point of Order, Major Milner—
The hon. Gentleman has already taken up a good deal of time tonight—I hope he will not interrupt.
There are four points which I want to put. The first is on the rights of compensation, the second is on the con- tinuation of selling schemes, the third is in regard to machinery, and the fourth comes under the first sentence of the Resolution in which it refers to certain allied activities. It is upon those four points that I want to make the observations which I am bound to make. In regard to the first one, Clause 35 of the Bill provides that regulations "may be made" for the payment of compensation and otherwise to the mineworkers. The point has already been made, but I want to stress it again, that there are contingencies where men may be put out of employment, as mentioned in previous speeches—cases where engineers and other workers may be transferred from one district to another, and yet the Government insist on the words "may be made." I consider it almost impertinent to the rights of ordinary British citizens, because, when we regard the Railways Act of 1921, in the Third Schedule, we find the provision, "shall continue," and that is put down quite definitely. I have noticed that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. P. Freeman) has put down an Amendment on this point, and I consider that it is so fundamental to this question of compensation that it should have been enough to have made him vote against the Second Reading. The Minister says, "I will be lenient and deal with these matters leniently." I suggest that it is not a question where a man should come and ask charity from the Minister. He is entitled to his rights, and I suggest that hon. Members of the Committee have a duty to see that this does not go through in its present form, but that these rights to compensation are put in.
What will it mean if the compensation Clause is passed as drafted? It will mean that a man will have to go again to the nine men, these bosses, if you like, and once again it will be a question of bargaining with people far more remote and far more powerful than the present owners are at the moment. I suggested that there are many thousands of officials, staff, clerks and other people who are going now into the trade unions and mutual benefit societies because, at the moment, they trust the employers, but they do not trust the State when they see it coming upon them. This is a point which all hon. Members should seriously consider. Are we going to pass over our responsibilities in this matter with the words, "regulations may be made?" It is a point on which—
I am sorry but the hon. and gallant Member must relate his remarks to the Financial Resolution.
11 p.m.
I suggest that the compensation Clause has been omitted from the Resolution, and the whole point I am making is that it should be put in. I do not want to labour it any further. I will move on to the second point I want to know, and that is with regard to the selling schemes, which the Committee will notice appear in A (iv). On this point I wish to welcome the inclusion of these selling schemes in this Financial Resolution. One of the reasons is this. We have heard a lot from the Government Benches about inefficiency and mismanagement of past years. I would point out that one of the reasons was, there was undercutting and a great difficulty in competition of consumers. In other words, the railway companies, the gas companies and the electricity companies undercut the various independent colliery owners until such time as they introduced these voluntary selling schemes which eventually became compulsory. In this respect it is interesting to see what a Socialist Member has said on this point. Mr. Tinker, who sat at one time for Leigh, said in 1937:
I pass to my third point, the question of machinery, that is the £150,000,000. Again I am glad to see that included in the Financial Resolution. The reason is, much more has been said in the Debate in the last two days about the question of the lack of concentration of output and the lack of machinery. It seems to me people have such short memories. They have forgotten that in the period between the wars there was a surplus of coal, and thereby a surplus of labour. I speak as one who has had a certain amount to do with the management of this industry, and particularly in one certain property. In this respect I wish to say that I am glad to be associated with two Members of the House, although they sit on the Front Bench of the Government, because they also have worked in the same colliery. I hope they will bear out what I am about to say, that in this period when there was the difficulty of unemployment, time and time again we did not concentrate haulages, we did not put on conveyors and so on, for the very reason that it would have put men out of work. That seems to be a fact which is entirely forgotten. In the past we have not put in this new machinery because of that very point. Further, the men have also, in their own way, been suspicious of it. Even now in South Yorkshire if you talk about the "track," you will find a certain amount of resistance.
It must not be forgotten that in those days, when the Reid Report criticises mismanagement and so on, a lot of that was done quite definitely with that purpose. Now the position has changed. We have a shortage of coal and shortage of manpower. Therefore I am glad to see included in the Financial Resolution this question of machinery. That brings me to my last point, but, unfortunately, possibly my biggest. In the first sentence of the Financial Resolution—I wish to make this quite clear—it says:
I now wish to address myself to a very pertinent point. In the Bill itself very wide powers are taken by the Minister. I am not going to weary the House by reading through the first Clause again. This point is of such importance that I want to put it over without any unnecessary verbiage. There are extraordinarily wide ramifications with regard to the coke ovens, and I wonder whether the Minister fully realises into what ramifications he is going. Coke ovens mean plastics, tar, benzole—which means motor cars—Aspros, chemistry, dyes, and a hundred and one things. I might perhaps read the Clause. I will condense it as much as possible:
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not confining himself to the terms of the Resolution. He appears to be dealing with the Bill, whereas he must confine his remarks within the Resolution.
I appreciate that, but the point I am trying to make is that the coke ovens should be taken out entirely from this Financial Resolution and should be dealt with by a separate Bill. The reasons why they should be taken out and dealt with by a separate Bill are the reasons which I am now developing. With coke we have something entirely different from that which we have with coal. I shall be guided by your Ruling, and I will try to keep to the narrower confines of the Resolution. The point I am trying to make is that we have these very large ramifications, and I consider that even if the Government brought in no more nationalisation legislation at all, under this Clause as it now stands, they could do nothing, and they need not bother to waste the time of the House, because this is far too wide.
Another reason why this matter of coke ovens should be taken out of the Financial Resolution is because the Government are going into State trading on a basis of a 40 per cent. minority. We should have the tar distillers sitting on one side of the Board. There would be 40 per cent. of the Government representing a certain percentage of coke ovens, and there would be 60 per cent. of other interests represented. If that 40 per cent. is overridden, is that to be a constitutional crisis, and are the Government going to resign, or will they bring down their mailed fist of legislation to get their will? The coke oven industry is essentally an efficient one, and none of the allegations of inefficiency or mismanagement, however necessary they may have been, can apply to the coke ovens. It seems to me that the Minister hit the nail on the head when he stated that he is not leaving the profitable ancillary assets in the hands of the private owners. There seems to be on the Government side an idea that if everybody says something, one of them may be right. I would like to quote the present Minister of Works who, when he was sitting for Farnworth some time ago, said that it is the necessity for making profit which is the root cause of most of the troubles of our time.
I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks within the terms of the Resolution. I have already given him a good deal of latitude, and I hope he will not stray further.
I am much obliged, Major Milner, and I appreciate the latitude which I have received.
I will end now. It is most necessary that coke ovens should be treated in a separate Bill. The Government say that they have a mandate for coal. They certainly have not one for coke and the number of votes cast for hon. Members opposite was only 36 per cent. of the total Voters of the country. The Minister himself could not make up his own mind two months after the Election whether he would nationalise the coke ovens or not. How then could there have been a mandate? I end by repeating that coke should be in a separate Bill and should be taken out of this Financial Resolution.
Hon. Members have been enjoying themselves immensely. If as appears to be indicated, this is the beginning of an all-night sitting, I have no complaint on that score. It is not the first time that I have participated in such an episode. I can claim to have played a more varied and longer part in this House than many hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I say that two can play at that game. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that to do with the Financial Resolution?"] It has as much to do with it as some of the arguments addressed by hon. Members opposite.
On a point of Order. Is it in Order, even for a right hon. Gentleman, to make reflections upon your conduct in the Chair?
I do not regard the remark made by the Minister as in any way a reflection on the Chair.
Now we know where we are. [HON MEMBERS: "NO."] There are some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. de la Bère), who do not know where they are. The hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) indulged in many ejaculations during the Second Reading. He asks for coal. As he seems to be a person of tolerable physique and is anxious about coal, why does he not enter the industry? A little hard work would not do him any harm. I am not going to say the same about the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I am not so sure about his physique. [ Interruption. ] I will make valiant efforts to get back to the Financial Resolution.
I am willing to take the right hon. Gentleman on, any day.
This is not the appropriate arena for that display. Despite my age, I am not without some resource even in that respect.
11.15 p.m.
I understand that hon. Members opposite have an insatiable thirst for information. That is not sufficient. I am satisfied that, if every one of these questions were answered meticulously, they would still display a curiosity out of all proportion to the importance of the subject. I am going to give them the answers I think they deserve. It may not satisfy them. [ Interruption. ] I do suggest that interruptions are reasonable if they are intelligent, but if the hon. Member sitting on the back bench is unable to express himself intelligently, he should either hold his peace or remove himself from the Chamber.
On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it in Order for a Minister to make reflections on my Friend on the bench behind me?
I understood the right hon. Gentleman was merely returning a Roland for an Oliver.
I was making no reflection on the hon. Member. I was merely asking him, in certain circumstances, to change his geographical position. We have been asked several questions on the subject of payment of compensation for redundancy. Hon. Members, one of them the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) and an hon. Gentleman opposite, have displayed great concern about the position of persons who may be taken over by the National Coal Board under the new dispensation and who may subsequently be displaced. There is a simple answer to them, and it is, as regards mineworkers, that it is exceedingly unlikely for a long time to come that there will be any redundancy. We will still require their services. We cannot afford to lose them. Indeed, quite recently protests have been made by the leaders of the responsible organisations about the action of certain coalowners in dismissing men who had reached the age of 65. I have had to take action, such action as was appropriate, although my powers are not as far-reaching as some might think in the circumstances. I had to take action in order to induce those coalowners to retain the services of such men, both for economic as well as social reasons. Therefore, it is clear beyond peradventure that for a long time to come no question of redundancy is likely to arise. As regards the administrative staff—I gather the hon. Member for West Swansea was primarily concerned with that category—there is a dearth of administrative workers in the coal industry and, therefore, no question of redundancy should arise among them. Where there is a contractual obligation, that is when an employee is taken over by the Board and his employment is covered by a contract of a week's notice or a month's notice, maybe a three to five years' contract, that contract will be respected by the National Coal Board. These obligations, along with many other contractual obligations, are provided for in Clause 6 of the Bill and in one of the Schedules.
Is the Minister really assuring the Committee that all colliery managers will be absorbed under the Bill? A great many of the smaller collieries, perhaps whole districts, will be closed. The colliery managers in these smaller pits and districts may not be very skilled. Will he be able to find places in the larger pits for them? Is he assuring us that those who seem bound to be redundant will be taken on, or will they be taken on at a lower rate?
The hon. and gallant Member is now asking me to agree that managers, as he calls them, who are not too well skilled—those are the words he used—and who are employed at the smaller undertakings and might be regarded as unfit to undertake larger responsibilities, should be compensated. I am not prepared to ask the Board to compensate in cases where there is not sufficient skill, in other words, where there is inefficiency.
rose —
I have got the hon. And gallant Member's point; he will see that. I do not wish to be disrespectful at all, but I have—
It is not their fault that they are not skilled.
I should be the last person in the world to castigate any person because he has not the requisite skill. Who am I to complain? I have not the right to complain of someone because he has not got the aptitude or the skill that is essential for a particular occupation. I am not complaining at all. I merely say that where there is alleged inefficiency, obviously it would be wrong to impose a statutory obligation on the Board to compensate. My answer to the hon. and gallant Member on the general point is this. There is such a dearth of mining engineers in this country—it is very unfortunate, but I must state the facts—that it is exceedingly unlikely that there would be any redundancy in that category. Furthermore the Board has the power, if it so desires, to deal with any case of hardship. But be it noted—and this is the reply to my hon. Friend from West Swansea—that the funds for such purposes must come out of the industry. They will not be a charge on the Exchequer as such. That would be quite improper. If there is to be compensation for displaced persons on the ground of redundancy or for any other reason the industry should be made responsible for the compensation entailed.
That is the reason why one must be very careful, because it would be wrong to impose burdens on the National Coal Board which were not undertaken by private owners. While I agree that the State and the National Coal Board must be a model employer, I recognise that the matter must be considered in the light of all the circumstances. I am trying to deal with this matter seriously, as the Committee would wish. I would say to the hon. Member, and to others who have raised this point, that it is largely a committee point. If I saw a form of words which in my judgment were satisfactory and appropriate, and could be applied without imposing unnecessary burdens on the Board and the industry—which would create further difficulties in price levels and the like—I would give it careful consideration. Beyond that, at this stage, I am not prepared to go.
Will it apply equally to the workmen and the staff?
I have already said that redundancy is unlikely in the case of mineworkers.
When I spoke of contractual obligations—we have to deal with these matters speedily, and therefore I have not dealt with all the details—I also had in mind practices and customs. One has grown up during the war—it is perhaps of recent growth—that when a workman is no longer eligible for employment at a particular pit, and there is difficulty about a transfer, or he is regarded as redundant for one reason or another, he is paid, I think, 12 weeks' wages. When there are customs of that sort, we have no desire to depart from them. What I have said about a form of words—I am making no commitment, which would be quite improper—applies equally to a mineworker and to the administrative section.
The point I am making is this. If they are going to close down a colliery are they entitled to give the men a week's wages to give them notice, and to say, "Now you shift yourself somewhere else and we will employ you there"?
My answer is hypothetical, but it is this. I would expect the National Coal Board, a body of reasonable men concerned with not only economic but social considerations, and primarily concerned with the reactions to any activity for which they are responsible, to be naturally very reluctant to dispense with men in that perfunctory fashion. Over and above that, as I said yesterday in my speech on the Second Reading, we must provide for transfer and resettlement. I think that is, for the time being, an adequate reply.
11.30 p.m.
The question of subsidence has been raised. It was partly dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of the afternoon. But it has been linked with this question of compensation of the miners, and the argument runs thus. It is said that if we are going to compensate the mineowners, we should equally compensate those whose houses are destroyed by subsidence. I want to deal with the question of compensation for the mineowners and get it out of the way. Incidentally, I would remark on the question of the global sum, and what may emerge from the global sum when the allocation is determined, that we have agreed terms of reference with the Mining Association. I beg hon. Members to believe me when I say those terms of reference were not easily achieved, but it was important to agree terms of reference and to appoint a judicial tribunal, which we have done, and I can give the names if they are asked for—
Yes.
As you please.
We would like all the names the right hon. Gentleman got.
Far be it from me to withhold any information. There are agreed terms of reference for submission to a tribunal, and the tribunal will make its determination—
We have not had the names yet.
If the right hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for just a couple of seconds I will give them. The names of the members of the tribunal are Lord Greene, Master of the Rolls, Mr. Justice Cohen and Sir Harold Howitt, an accountant, President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Be it noted as indicating the remarkable measure of agreement that emerged at the end of the discussions that it is provided for in the agreed terms of reference—and the White Paper is in the possession of hon. Members—that the accountant concerned should be appointed by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the President of the Chartered Institute himself, and the President of the Chartered Institute is the accountant on the tribunal. This indicates the measure of agreement which was reached. We have been very successful in our negotiations.
Why was it necessary to have these agreed terms of reference and to get the tribunal going? If one factor has emerged in the course of our debates it is this—and it has emerged tonight: the desirability of removing as speedily as possible the uncertainty surrounding the industry. We have to get this new organisation going as quickly as we can and, moreover, it is very desirable that the valuation proceedings should begin quickly so that the owners can get their money. They are very anxious about it themselves. If we had waited until the Bill became law, perhaps in a couple of months or so, subject to the will of the House, and then proceeded to set up the tribunal under the Act, we should have delayed the proceedings and created more uncertainty. The sooner we get to the vesting date the better; the sooner we get to the valuation boards the better; the sooner we make the allocation the better, so that we can satisfy not only the interests of the nation but the interests of the owners of the property. That is what I have to say as far as compensation is concerned.
This question of subsidence is a most complex, vexatious and thorny question. I have been in this House many years, and over a long period this question has continually cropped up. There was a Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence many years ago. Every Government I have known has jibbed at the prospect of dealing with this matter of great complexity. I should have been glad to tackle this proposition, but it is a case of "first things, first." We must deal with the reorganisation of the industry. The general question of subsidence must be set aside for the time being, but that does not mean the Board is without the necessary power, if it so determines, to deal with cases where subsidence occurs and where there is no right to support. Of course, where there is the right to support, then, obviously, compensation must be paid. That is one of the contractual obligations to which I have referred. Where there is no right of support, the Board can, if it wishes and out of its own funds, provide for compensation in certain cases.
It has been suggested—I think by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee)—that what we ought to do, is to prevent the use of heavy machinery, or, rather, she put it that it was the introduction of heavy machinery and the advance of mechanisation which caused most subsidence. I am happy to inform the hon. Lady that that is not the case. Light machinery is just as detrimental as heavy machinery. In fact, the introduction of certain types of machinery for the purpose of stowing, as has been done in Germany to a considerable extent, if employed in British coal pits, would, to a large extent, militate against this danger of subsidence.
When the right hon. Gentleman says the National Board will have authority to compensate in cases of damage to property due to mining operations, does he mean the Bill already contains an acceptance of responsibility for commitments entered into by colliery companies, and also damage to property due to subsidence where those commitments do not permit and where the subsidence is due to mining operations under public ownership?
My hon. Friend is asking for something too far-reaching and comprehensive. I have no idea what that would cost; it might cost many millions of pounds. But I will say that the Board, under the Bill, will accept obligations now undertaken by the colliery companies. There will also be the cases of hardship where the Board can, if it so decides, provide a certain measure of compensation.
The question of research has been raised, and I can deal with that very shortly. Under Clause 39 of the Bill, there is a provision for the transfer of a trust fund. It is to be vested in the Minister, and the Minister is to be responsible for certain measures of research. I was very anxious to undertake this task. It does not mean that the Board will ignore research. The duty is imposed on the Board under the Bill. But, as the custodian of the public interest, it is the duty of the Minister to concern himself with research, and I want to have these powers transferred. That is all it means. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stress) that we are very anxious indeed to promote research, and that we shall do all we can in that direction.
Finally, let me come to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite about the ancillary undertakings. He takes exception to the proposition that, in addition to the colliery undertakings, we propose to transfer the ancillary activities, and, particularly, he objects to the transfer of the coke ovens. I am going to short-circuit this argument. Hon. Members opposite may object, but I shall short-circuit it by repeating what I said in my speech yesterday. It was this. I asked, for the National Coal Board, the power to undertake activities that are now operated by private coalowners and by others concerned with the coal industry, and that it should be empowered to undertake such other activities as the coalowners and others concerned could have undertaken if they were so minded.
I suggest to hon. Members that that is reasonable. Why should I deprive the National Coal Board of powers that are now vested in private undertakings? Why should I be asked to hamstring the Coal Board at its birth? I shall do nothing of the sort. Why this anxiety to retain the coke ovens? I may tell the Committee that, in this matter, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, of coke ovens and plastics, and the emergence of new industries, we have a vision on that subject. We want to address ourselves to that topic with imagination and with a measure of realism.
Has the Minister got a mandate?
I am asked if we have got a mandate. When I hear new hon. Members of the Committee—I am not complaining about that—and hon. Members on the Tory Benches, complaining about the absence of a mandate, and when I reflect upon the activities of Conservative Governments and those responsible in the last 20 years—
On a point of Order. I wish to know whether hon. Gentlemen on this side will be allowed to discuss the subject of the activities of Tory Governments in the last 20 years, now being introduced under this Financial Resolution?
I will deal with that question when it arises.
May I ask a question, with very great respect? The question has now been opened up by the Minister, and I would like to ask whether, when the time comes, as the Minister has introduced the question, we shall have the right to answer him?
I must say I did not hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, but if and when the question arises I shall deal with it.
On that point of Order. With very great respect, Mr. Chairman, many of us did hear the statement. If we get up and answer it, will that be in Order?
No one knows better than the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) that that question can best be dealt with when it arises.
rose —
On that point of Order. I quite realise that, for you, Major Milner, it does not arise, but, for most of us, it has arisen. I can fully accept your Ruling now or I am prepared to wait and test it presently, but it is going to be very difficult if we are not allowed to reply to a statement which the Minister has made.
I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows almost better than any hon. Member how undesirable it is to decide matters in advance.
11.45 p.m.
I was replying to a question I was asked about a mandate. I did not raise it. It was the hon. Member opposite. Now apparently that matter is out of Order so I can leave it for some other occasion. I would have been only too happy to join issue with hon. Members opposite on that topic. I repeat, it is our intention to go all the way as regards these ancillary and subsidiary activities. We are going to do so.
Finally, I am asked what we propose to do with the £150,000,000. I have been sitting here for two days listening to that question repeated by hon. Members opposite. There are all the details in the Reid Report. There is the question of machinery. I agree we cannot produce all the machinery we need for a speedy mechanisation of the mines, not at present. The manufacturers are not in a position to produce the machinery. They are producing some, and progress has been accelerated in recent weeks and will be still more accelerated in the coming months. I tell the hon. Members that we are proceeding on an assumption—I believe it is a well founded assumption that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament. It is in the interests of the nation to expend monies for the purpose of reorganisation. We are looking ahead and we are preparing the blue prints. We must, in the circumstances of the case, look ahead; we cannot afford to wait. It is not only for the purpose of machinery. We have got to deal with haulage, the most vulnerable spot in the pits in this country. What is the use of putting modern machinery at the coal face if you cannot get the coal from the face? It involves a great deal of labour, more labour than materials perhaps. We have got to sink shafts. There may be some de-watering to be undertaken. A great deal of work of that kind is called for, and of the £150,000,000, £30,000,000 will be required for working capital. After all, we have got to take the mines over. We have to buy stores, timber and a variety of other needs to carry on the pits. There will be a matter of £120,000,000 available to be expended in the course of five years. I believe we can spend it. We shall spend it wisely. If at the end of that period we find it necessary to come and ask for more we shall come to Parliament and do so, and we shall come with a record of high achievement.
I have done my best to reply to these questions. I hope that hon. Members will now regard the matter, at any rate for the time being, on the basis of this Financial Resolution as closed. There may be other points that can be raised in the course of the Committee stage, and I assure the hon. Members of this Committee that I shall be very willing at all times to consider submissions that are made to me. I have got an open mind on many of these matters. My primary consideration—as I am sure is the consideration of every hon. Member—is to try to put this industry on its feet for the benefit of the nation.
I cannot help feeling that, in the course of his somewhat exuberant remarks, the right hon. Gentleman rather forgot that we were discussing a Financial Resolution. We thank him for giving us somewhat more information than he gave us yesterday. We still do not know when the labour and material will be available on which he proposes to spend his £150 millions, and if the process of reconversion to peacetime conditions does not shortly proceed much quicker I cannot see how he is going to spend it in the five years which are mentioned.
But I do not want to pursue that matter at any length tonight. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that some of the things he said about being able to raise these matters again on Committee he can hardly have considered before he said them, for the following reason. If you fail to draft a Financial Resolution in sufficiently wide terms to enable an Amendment to be put down on that Resolution, then you are for ever barred from considering the point. The whole purpose of this discussion is to ask the Government to frame their Financial Resolutions much more loosely in order that discussions such as this can take place in an ordered manner in Committee, and not in the slightly scrappy way in which they take place at this time of night. It is a very great pity that we should have to conduct discussions on these very important questions in this way and at this time of night, and it is wholely due to the way in which the Government have treated the Committee. The Government ought to have done two things. They ought to have framed the Financial Resolution sufficiently widely to enable these matters to be raised at subsequent stages of the Bill, and they ought to have allowed the Committee Stage of this Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House so that the matters which we have been discussing could have been discussed in an orderly way at a proper time of day. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not see that this was done. He told us yesterday—I do not think in a jocular way—that he could not put everything in the Bill, but the effect of drawing the Financial Resolution so tightly as it has been drawn is that the things to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded as not having been put in the Bill cannot even be discussed when we come to the Committee Stage.
What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to discuss?
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. The point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) certainly deserves much more close discussion than we have been able to give it in a few casual minutes tonight.
Let us get this straight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there are certain matters one cannot discuss. I asked him what these matters were. Now he raises the question of subsidence. Does he say that on the Committee stage we cannot discuss subsidence?
One certainly cannot on a Committee stage propose any Amendment which would impose any charge for the purpose of making good damage done by subsidence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have much more knowledge of this subject than he appears to have. He ought to know quite well that that only applies to the Consolidated Fund.
Of course, it does—
I have already pointed out that this is a matter which could, if necessary—I am not saying it should; I am not committing myself—be imposed on the industry.
If we are not talking about the possibility of imposing this on the Consolidated Fund, then the whole of the discussion at this stage is completely out of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to reply to this, it is quite obvious that we have been discussing this matter on the footing that certain hon. Members wish to keep open the question of regarding this matter as a charge. They forget that even more important question, compensation to displaced persons who do not get re-employment under the Board. There is no doubt that under the Financial Resolution we cannot impose a charge in respect of that matter. Similar previous Bills have contained provisions about it, and the matter ought to be open to argument, not only as to whether, but how, there should be compensation. As a result of the very tight drawing of the Resolution, we can only discuss half the problem.
This is not the first time that the method of drawing Financial Resolutions has caused a great deal of trouble in this House. It comes up periodically, under Governments of all complexions. The last time was, I believe, in 1934. Considerable sympathy was aroused among Government supporters and there were protests, as a result of which the practice improved very materially for a long time. The Government did try not to draw their Financial Resolutions tightly. I have noticed a tendency, which has certainly not improved, since the Government came into office for these Resolutions to be drawn far too tightly, and therefore to attract, at this time of night, this discussion, which ought to take place on Amendments which would be in Order, if the Financial Resolution was sufficiently wide. I hope tonight's discussion will induce hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to reconsider their policy and to see that Resolutions are drawn sufficiently widely to allow reasonable Amendments to be proposed on Committee stage. That is not asking very much, and it would avoid a great deal of trouble. Business would be got through very much better if hon. Members felt they had had a fair deal.
Are we discussing the particular Financial Resolution, or Financial Resolutions in general?
This Financial Resolution. I am asking the Government to try to draw Financial Resolutions widely enough. If they will not do that, I say they should take the lesson of this Resolution and not repeat the same restrictive practice that it contains. [ Interruption. ] I do not want to take an unnecessary amount of time.
12 midnight.
On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made some remarks about repetition, and yet he has now said about 26 times that he does not want to keep the House late.
Are we to take it, apart from the point raised by two hon. Members, one on subsidence and the other on compensation, that the Opposition now have no other arguments to advance?
Discussion on the question of subsidence will not be in Order now on the Financial Resolution.
On that point of Order. The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was discussing the question of subsidence and talked for about five minutes on that subject.
It was first discussed as a general point in connection with the industry, but it is out of Order on this Resolution.
I have not been talking on a particular point but on the general question affecting the form of the Financial Resolution, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will withdraw this one, and, if he will not, to bear in mind these considerations for the future. I shall have something to say later on on some of the Amendments which are standing in the name of my right hon. Friend and myself, but I do not think I need prolong this discussion any longer on the general Resolution.
Then I will now call upon the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment.
No.
For our guidance, Major Milner, if you are now calling on the right hon. Gentleman to move the Amendment standing in his name, may I ask if, when the Amendments are disposed of and the Committee wish it, we will return to a general discussion on the Financial Resolution?
When the question of the general discussion on the Resolution came up I made the suggestion that we might dispose of the Amendments first. That, apparently, did not meet the wishes of the Committee and we, therefore, had the general discussion. Now the time has come for the Amendments to come before the Committee, and when we have disposed of them we shall return to the general Debate.
I beg to move, in line 14, leave out from "fixed" to "by," in line 17.
All this is rather unusual, because when you, Major Milner, called my right hon. and learned Friend, he had no idea that he was to move the Amendment, and therefore he proceeded with the few observations he had in mind. Now that he has formally moved the Amendment, we will go backwards, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) will end the Debate instead. It might be convenient for the Committee to take the first two Amendments together, because they are on the same point and they are merely drafting Amendments. The effect would be to leave out the part of para. A(i), which has reference to the agreement which has been reached by the Minister and the Mining Association. If it were agreed to, it would authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of principal and interest and so on, but making the compensation for the transfer of interests, which are thereafter described, an agreed amount fixed by the tribunal sitting under the Act. The effect of the Amendment is to take out of the Money Resolution the factor which would otherwise be the case, that the aggregate amount can only be fixed by reference to the agreement under the terms of reference of that agreement and by a tribunal set up by that agreement. If these words are left in the Resolution, it is impossible for the Bill to be amended so that a sum, taking other factors into consideration, could be considered by the tribunal other than that suggested. That is the proposal we make. We say that it should be open to the Committee on the Bill to discuss these matters. It will not be open to the Committee to discuss them if these words remain. The words which appear in the Bill in Clause 9, Subsection 3, cannot, of course, be altered because it would be mandatory on the Committee only to deal with the question of fixing the aggregate on the system fixed by this Resolution. We think it is reasonable that the Committee should have full freedom to discuss this matter. It is quite true, as the Minister—
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that there seem to be about 15 committees going on at the present time, and I cannot hear a word of what the right hon. and gallant Gentle- man is saying. Can we have a little bit more silence?
I have no doubt that the hon. Members who are conversing will now respect the desires of the hon. and gallant Member.
I am very sorry that the topic should be of so little interest to so many hon. Members that they prefer their own conversation to such observations as I am offering to them. I cannot help that because I am not responsible for this Bill. If it is a boring subject, it is to the Front Bench opposite that it should be ascribed and not to me. The point I am trying to put, if my hon. and gallant Friend can now hear me, is this. If these words remain in this Money Resolution, the words of Subsection (3) of Clause 9 also remain, and as a consequence it would not be competent for the Standing Committee to discuss any other method of reaching the sum which should be payable as compensation other than that which has been laid down in this agreement.
We understood from the Minister that he takes great satisfaction to himself that this agreement has been reached between himself and the Mining Association of Great Britain. That may or may not be the case, but it does not concern us as a House of Commons or us who speak from these benches. We are not responsible for what the Mining Association thinks or does and never have been and never will be. I am not at all certain that a tribunal of this kind is the right tribunal. It is a very unusual tribunal. We are told that it is to have two judges and an accountant on it. I am not saying what view the Standing Committee will take, because it has not been constituted and one does not know who will be on it. I merely want it to be left open to the Standing Committee to which this Bill is sent to give consideration as to what form of tribunal might be constituted to come to this very important decision. It should be open to that Committee to discuss the matter and to say what they think and put it in the Bill if necessary. After all, it is very unusual to put in this arrangement of a figure to be reached by a tribunal subsequent to the introduction or even the passage of the Bill.
The more normal procedure is, if there is to be some method of arbitration with regard to prices, or whatever it may be, that that is reached before the matter comes to Parliament. Parliament is, normally in a position to judge whether the figure reached for the transaction is a reasonable figure in the light of all the circumstances, and by reference to the factors by which the relevant tribunal has been guided. Here we have a different idea: we have no figure at all. They merely propose that compensation should be paid a certain amount fixed in accordance with the terms of reference reached by an outside agreement to which this Parliament has had nothing to say. After all, Parliament did not know that negotiations were going on. Parliament was merely presented with a White Paper saying that the Government and the Mining Association of Great Britain had come to some agreement by referring certain questions to certain people on certain bases. That, in our view, was not really right for this House. This House should have a say in the matter if it wants to. It may be that the House does not want to. If it does not want this, it can insert an Amendment in the Bill. If these words are in the Money Resolution, it could not insert anything else, and I am not certain that it could even discuss anything else, on the basis of what my right hon. and learned Friend put to it just now. The Money Resolution should be drawn wide enough to permit of discussion if it is required. I want to reserve the right of Members, whether on this side of the House or the other; and we do not think this is the right kind of tribunal.
I merely stress this as one example of what my right hon and learned Friend was saying just now. If only this Resolution had been drawn wide enough, it would be possible for Members in all parts of the House to raise the issue on the Committee stage. All I am asking is that there should be an opportunity for discussion. There will not be if these words remain in the Money Resolution. It is because we disapprove of the arrangements reached regarding these matters that my right hon. and learned Friend has moved this Amendment.
12.15 a.m.
I rise to draw attention to the unsatisfactory form in which this part of the Financial Resolution appears on the Paper. As it is, with these words left in, it is really reducing this House to nothing more than a rubber stamp to give approval to some agreement which has been reached by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the one hand, and the Mining Association of Great Britain on the other. That being the case, it must be clear that by removing those words from the Resolution we do not feel we are removing the possibility of adopting some form of valuation. The tribunal is not, perhaps, one that will commend itself to the Committee. To have two judges and one chartered accountant is an inverted pyramid. I have always understood it was usual to have one judge to adjudicate between two accountants appearing before him as expert witnesses. Now, apparently we are to have the benefit of one accountant adjudicating or determining matters which might be in dispute between the two judges.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power will be able to deal with this matter. There may be some material reasons why this is the only way the valuation can be dealt with, and I would ask two questions on the matter. It may be that I have been ignorant with regard to this. The first question is whether he could refer me to a White Paper giving the heads and terms of agreement between the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Mining Association; or, alternatively, if that Paper is not available, I wonder whether he would give the Committee, for its guidance, the salient words that operate.
I am not quite clear whether the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) moved this Amendment or not. Anyway, it might not be out of place if I answered the point he made before I go on to the observations which fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead complained that the Resolution was too tightly drawn, and he took occasion to say that it was more tightly drawn than any Resolution since, I think, the year 1934, or words to that effect, or that Resolutions recently had the tendency to become more tightly drawn, and that after 1934, when com- plaint was made, things got better. Perhaps the latter is a fairer way of putting it. I think he will find, if he looks at this Resolution and goes back over the record of the last Parliament, of which he was a distinguished member, that almost invariably the Money Resolutions brought to this House by the Coalition Government were very much tighter and more narrowly drawn.
Oh, no.
It is possible under this Resolution as drawn for a wide discussion to take place, for example, whether compensation should be paid in stock or in cash, and there are other points of a similar kind. With reference to the observations from the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), I was very interested in his reference to a rubber stamp, because at the last election his party received, I gather, the rubber stamp of the party above the Gangway, otherwise it would have been completely obliterated at the poll. He asked me if I could let him know where he could find the terms of reference which had been agreed to between the Mining Association and the Government—the Minister of Fuel and Power—with regard to the tribunal. It is set forth very plainly in the White Paper which any Member can get at the Vote Office. I know it is brief and concise but it is nevertheless complete. May I turn to the Amendment?
I was, of course, aware of the reference in the White Paper, but I had the feeling that a matter of this complexity, involving large capital amounts, should be dealt with in a more formal submission, and that this was just a summary of the terms reached between the two parties.
All the terms are here. The Committee will see—I am not trying to make a debating point against the hon. Gentleman—that all the necessary heads which any tribunal, however composed, would need are here. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that it answers his question. The effect of this Amendment will be to increase the aggregate of compensation payable. To some on this side of the Committee there is a fear that, if accepted, it would increase the charge on the Exchequer to a greater amount than would be the case under the Reso- lution as drawn. I cannot follow the object of the Amendment. Surely, if under the Resolution as drawn, the Mining Association is satisfied, the object of the hon. Gentlemen opposite can only be to increase the compensation, or the chance of increasing it, to the mining industry. It cannot be their desire that, by a change of words, the amount which might be payable under the Resolution should be reduced. The Amendment would wreck the agreement come to between the Mining Association and the Government. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The Mining Association are quite satisfied with the agreement. They did not enter into it under duress; it was freely and voluntarily come to. Surely, if the mining industry, on the owners' side, are satisfied, it is not for hon. Gentlemen opposite to think it is a bad bargain and to want to better things for them?
Are we to understand that hon Members on this side are not to have the right to express their opinion on public amalgamations, and are to be tied by agreements made by outside bodies? Is that the opinion?
I must have expressed myself badly; I did not wish to imply that at all. I was simply pointing out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that this agreement is one which satisfies the owners and one to which they have been a party. I understand they regard the agreement as a right and proper one, and, so far as they are concerned, the matter is closed.
So far as they are concerned.
Of course, it is not closed as far as this Committee is concerned. If it were, we should not be discussing it now.
It would be closed if these words stood in the Money Resolution. That is the whole point of my argument.
If the Amendment is accepted, it would mean that the arbitration tribunal—and the setting up of that tribunal—could not be proceeded with until the Bill was on the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power made this point earlier in the Debate. It is a valid point. If the Amend- ment were accepted, it would delay proceedings under the Bill. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said this had not happened before. He forgot, perhaps, the Coal Act of 1938, where a similar procedure was followed, adopted and put into the Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman challenges me, if he will look at the Bill he will find a figure introduced. There is no figure here at all.
That was perfectly true, and, if we knew a figure, if we knew what the figure was, it would have been inserted here. [ Laughter. ] Hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very easily amused, but they know as well as we do that it is not the thing, to set up a tribunal to discover what is the proper and just compensation to pay, and to put the amount in in advance before the tribunal sits. There is an analogy between the 1938 Act, as far as procedure is concerned, and this Bill. It is true that a figure could go in in that case, because we knew it. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, which neither the Mining Association nor the party on this side want, because it would affect the speedy working of the tribunal which we all desire to set up in order to arrive at the figure which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so anxious to know. If they will take advice from me, though I know they will not, if they are anxious to know the figure at the earliest possible moment, the best way to achieve that object is to withdraw the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) said the Government was trying to make a rubber stamp of the Committee. I think it would have been more appropriate to say that this Committee was being asked, as on so many other occasions in the Bill, to sign a blank cheque. The Financial Secretary said the purpose of the Amendment was to enable increased compensation to be paid to colliery companies. I deny that entirely. It might have quite a different result. The object of this Amendment is to enable the Committee upstairs to have a free hand in considering the basis of compensation. Suppose that this tribunal, acting under its terms of reference which have never been submitted to the House, were to award a fantastic sum, quite beyond the capacity of the country to pay or quite beyond the deserts of the colliery company, this Committee, and the House, by passing this Resolution, would have deprived itself of any opportunity of criticising that amount. Surely, the Financial Resolution ought to be amended in accordance with my right hon. Friend's proposal, so as to give the Committee upstairs at least a free hand to discuss some other basis of compensation?
I hope we may get a little more certainty on this, because it is necessary for someone to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite how much they are doing on this occasion. They are really doing more than has ever been done before in this direction. They are asking the Committee, after a very short Debate, far shorter than has ever been taken before on a matter of such immense importance, to send to a smaller Committee, a Standing Committee, a Bill which has had a Second Reading and with this Resolution will have had the amending of it tied extremely tightly in one extremely important particular. Hon. Members should note what that particular is. If not right hon. Gentlemen opposite, certainly very many hon. Gentlemen opposite, have for many years taught the world that what was mainly wrong with the world was the combined wickedness and imbecility of a set of fat men in top hats who manage the mining and similar industries. What are they now telling the world? They are telling the world that these fat gentlemen having done a deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, it is to be put after the minimum of Debate out of the power of this House or the population of this country, to go back in any respect upon the terms then agreed.
12.30 a.m.
I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will not say to them as the Financial Secretary did to us, that as they are very easily amused, because when the Financial Secretary said that, I thought he had perhaps forgotten what the French poet said, "Je ris pour ne pas pleurer". Possibly when right hon. Gentlemen opposite observe laughter on this side, it arises sometimes not from amusement but from a desire to avoid tears. I would seriously warn them of this. They are apt to think —as all parties after a tremendous electoral success are apt to think—that they are there for ever. But that is not quite what is going to happen. Whatever else happens, that is not going to happen. When that ceases to be so—indeed long before that has ceased to be so—they may think that this is a very good Bill and that this is a very good Financial Resolution, but the most optimistic of them cannot think this Bill and this Financial Resolution so good that there will not be periods of disappointment in 18 months or so. There will be times when people will look back and think that they have not got so much out of this as they hoped for. When they do that, it is going to be politically extremely dangerous to them that at that stage people should, be able to remember that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at the time when they did this knew that they were straining Parliamentary Procedure beyond the point at which it is constitutionally tolerable. That, in fact, is what is happening. We did have, for a few minutes, the presence of one of the principal legal advisors of His Majesty's Government. I am sorry to see neither of them here now. I should have thought on this point it was highly necessary to the Financial Secretary to have their assistance. If the Government have some seam of intellectual fuel and power lurking just below the surface, perhaps it will come to the top. I suggest there has been really no sufficient explanation of this. It is not decent that this Amendment should be rejected without more explanation, and if Ministers cannot do more, at least they can put up one of the Law Officers to attempt to satisfy us.
I think the Financial Secretary—who is always so courteous to us and tries so hard to understand our point of view—has perhaps not altogether understood the purpose of this Amendment, or the effect which it would produce if it were carried. This Amendment does not seek to decide tonight the principle upon which the valuation should be made. It merely seeks to keep open for further reflection and debate whether that principle is one which the House of Commons should or should not accept, whether it should be accepted as a good principle, as a precedent for other similar Bills—because I understand that the hon. Gentleman has in his legislative arsenal all kinds of machines which it is proposed to launch in due course upon the House on somewhat similar lines. Therefore, what we decide upon this question will have its reactions and its reflections upon other similar matters. All this Amendment seeks to do is not to settle that question at twenty-five minutes to one this morning. I do not know the exact relation which the Ministry have with the Mining Association. I know they have in the past had very agreeable relations with the National Union of Mine Workers, and still have. I am now gratified, although surprised, to find that, apparently, they have similarly friendly relations with the Mining Association. But that does not seem to me to remove from the ambit of this House and the electoral representatives of the nation the right at least to discuss and decide whether or not this is a sound principle of compensation. The hon. Gentleman admits that?
indicated assent.
The only question between us is whether we should decide it at this moment, or defer it for our future thoughts and deliberations when we have had a little more time to consider it. After all, we were not parties to those secret agreements between the Ministries and the various bodies of capitalists. It is nothing to do with us. I do not own any shares in coal mines; I am not a director of a coal company; I have not the opportunities for close and happy relations with those particular capitalist fish who rise to the right hon. Gentleman's bait.
What about tin or rubber?
I had nothing to do with tin or rubber, neither has this Bill, but, if it were in Order, I would be quite prepared to discuss what little I know about tin and rubber for any length of time which you, Mr. Beaumont, would allow me. However, I am sure it would be out of Order were I to answer an interruption of that kind, however helpfully meant. For many years in this House I have listened to Debates on Financial Resolutions on important Bills. In those days I was more enterprising than some of the hon. Members on the back benches opposite now appear to be, because I joined in, as I think, a proper stand for the rights of the House of Commons. This practice of drawing the Financial Resolution in such a way as practically to preclude debate on the Committee stage has been growing for many years. Mr. Speaker Fitzroy, in his judgment from the Chair upon the Depressed Areas Bill, which I very well remember, told us how much he, as the guardian of the rights of the House of Commons, deplored it, and as a result there was a great protest, in which the party opposite were the protagonists, supported by many Members of my party, including myself. I was then a poacher, but there are no poachers on the opposite benches now. I do not know what has happened to them. They just go tramping, tramping round the Lobbies, with no thoughts of their own. The practice of drawing these Resolutions so carefully reduces the Committee stage to something of a farce. We have had two days' Debate on this immense subject. I have listened to practically the whole of the Debate—I have been out of the House for only a very few minutes—and I do not think there has been any reference, except the very smallest, to this question whether the global system is right and fair, and one which commends itself to the House.
There are other subjects of far greater importance, to us, at any rate. We are much more interested in the future of the industry than in anything else. Therefore there has not really been time in two days' Debate for hon. Members to form a considered judgment.
There has been practically no discussion whether this is or is not a sound principle, and no opportunity by question and answer. Some very good speeches have been made by Ministers, but I do not think that any reference was made at all to this question. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary did not even relate to the Second Reading Debate, far less to this point.
This question is very important. It may be that the Government have made arrangements with people whom they conceive to be the only people with the right to express a view, namely, the Mining Association. I do not share that view. I think the House of Commons has the right to express its views. I do not think it is right that in a very few minutes, after this Debate, we should hurriedly and without thought, take a decision on this point.
We are merely asking that the Committee to which this Bill is to be sent should have an opportunity of discussing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he tried to rebut the powerful arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) kept on saying: "We will refer all these questions to Committee"; but we cannot do so, if we pass this Financial Resolution. That is where he was wrong. It is unfair to us and to the country that the right hon. Gentleman should say in Debate: "You can discuss all these things in Committee," when the Government themselves put down a Financial Resolution which makes the discussion impossible. That is either inaccurate, incompetent and ill-informed, or it is dishonest. I prefer to think it is the first. In fact, I am sure it is. I would never accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of trying to mislead the House; but he was ill-informed. Ministers may think that their sole function in dealing with these matters is to enter into some hidden, secret agreement with powerful financial forces of the country, but that is not our view, which is that we have a right and a duty to discuss these matters.
The only thing we seek to do is to have the opportunity of discussing them. We are not allowed this opportunity—and that is in itself the greatest scandal—to debate this matter upon the Floor of the House, except now, which is the only time we shall have. The Financial Secretary disagrees.
It can be discussed on Clause 9 (3).
No, because we shall be precluded, if we pass this Resolution.
I do not want to make a mountain out of something quite tiny, but the right hon. Gentleman has been stressing the fact that we cannot debate this matter. I am pointing out that we most certainly can, when we come, on the Committee stage, to the appropriate Clause.
I do not want to make a mountain out of anything, still less a mountain which produces a mouse—as the hon. Gentleman seems to have done. We can debate but what is the good of it? We go round and round but we have no opportunity of presenting an alternative. That is not debate. It may be a new procedure to which we are to be subjected. It may be the new democracy—an instance of the new, harsh tyranny to which we are to be subject. But so long as we feel that we have at least the support of half the nation, we have the right to speak. We are not yet overwhelmed by the powerful artillery of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, however well it is deployed.
Rubbish.
We are not frightened either, by interruptions from below the Gangway, however well delivered. We are not overwhelmed by any of this armament because we claim the right that these subjects should be kept open for debate. Why are hon. Members opposite afraid of debate? If it goes to Committee, they will have their huge majority to get them through, to dictate their terms, so why are they frightened. There is no need for it, because the Debates will not be printed in the newspapers—they will have no room for it, the Government having refused to let them have more newsprint. Why cannot the matter be dealt with in the right and constitutional way? It is an important matter, and the mere fact that the Minister has made a secret agreement—
Get on with the argument.
When the hon. Member is Chairman, I will give heed to his Ruling, because he will then have more authority than he has where he is seated now, below the Gangway.
The right hon. Gentleman has repeated himself half a dozen times.
If the Minister has tied himself by a secret agreement that has not been disclosed, by some arrangement with the Mining Association of which we have not been told, let the Committee know exactly what that arrangement is. We are accustomed in the House of Commons to Debate the merits of the subject, and we have the right to discuss this question, and I hope that this Committee will preserve that right and see that this discussion is carried through, and not allow this to be done in a hole and corner manner—
I must call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that his speech is one of continuous repetition.
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I must say that it is only by the use of a reasonable amount of repetition that we appear to get any point at all into the heads of those on the Front Bench opposite. I end by saying once more that I hope it will now go on record that the House of Commons is being precluded from debate on the Committee stage of this Bill because of some secret agreement between the Minister and a great capitalist organisation.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
On a point of Order.
I have put the Question.
( seated and covered ): On a point of Order. I put my previous point before you had collected the voices and I wish to ask for the presence of the Minister of Fuel and Power. [ Interruption ].
I gave the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to speak but it was not a point of Order, and I have now put the Question.
( seated and covered ): Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, for me to raise a point of Order? I wish to ask you for your Ruling. I raised my point of Order before you collected the voices. My point of Order was that we had not had the presence of the Minister of Fuel and Power. The Question was put just as I was stating my point of Order.
I did not accept it as a point of Order.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 144.
Division No. 66.] AYES. [12.51 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Collick, P. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Collindridge, F. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Collins, V. J. Gibbins, J. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Comyns, Dr. L. Gibson, C. W. Anderson, F (Whitehaven) Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Gilzean, A. Attewell, H. C. Corlett, Dr. J. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Austin, H. L. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Goodrich, H. E. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Daggar, G. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Bacon, Miss A. Daines, P. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Baird, Capt. J. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Grenfell, D. R. Balfour, A. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Grierson, E. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Barton, C. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly) Bechervaise, A. E. Davies, S. O (Merthyr) Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Bellenger, F. J. Deer, G. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Berry, H. Delargy, Captain H. J. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Diamond, J. Hale, Leslie Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Dobbie, W. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Donovan, T. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Binns, J. Douglas, F. C. R. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Driberg, T. E. N. Hardman, D R. Blyton, W. R. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Boardman, H. Dumpleton, C. W. Haworth, J Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Durbin, E. F. M. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Bowles F. G. (Nuneaton) Dye, S Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Herbison, Miss M Brook, D. (Halifax) Edelman, M. Hewitson, Capt. M. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Hicks, G. Brown, George (Belper) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Hobson, C. R. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Ewart, R. Horabin, T. L. Buchanan, G. Fairhurst, F. House, G. Burden, T. W. Farthing, W. J. Hoy, J. Burke, W. A. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Hubbard, T. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Follick, M. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Foot, M. M. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Champion, A. J. Forman, J. C. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Chater, D. Foster, W. (Wigan) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Cobb, F. A. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Cocks, F. S. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Irving, W. J. Coldrick, W. Gallacher, W Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Janner, B. Noel-Buxton, Lady Stubbs, A. E. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) O'Brien, T. Summerskill, Dr. Edith Jeger, Dr. S. W, (St. Pancras, S. E.) Oldfield, W. H. Swingler, Capt. S. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Orbach, M. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Paget, R. T. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Keenan, W. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Kenyon, C. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) King, E. M. Palmer, A. M. F. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Pargiter, G. A. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Kinley, J. Parker, J. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Lang, G. Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Lavers, S. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, F.) Lee, F. (Hulme) Paton, J. (Norwich) Thorneycroft, H. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Peart, Capt. T. F. Tiffany, S. Leonard, W. Perrins, W. Timmons, J. Leslie, J. R. Piratin, P. Tolley, L. Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Popplewell, E. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Levy, B. W. Porter, E. (Warrington) Turner-Samuels, M. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Pritt, D. N. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Proctor, W. T. Usborne, Henry Lindgren, G. S. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Randall, H. E. Wadsworth, G. Logan, D. G. Rankin, J. Walkden, E. Longden, F. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Walker, G. H. Lyne, A. W. Reeves, J. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) McAllister, G. Reid, T. (Swindon) Warbey, W. N. McEntee, V. La T. Rhodes, H. Watkins, T. E. McGhee, H. G. Robens, A. Watson, W. M. McGovern, J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Weitzman, D. Mack, J. D. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) McKinlay, A. S. Rogers, G. H. R. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) McLeavy, F. Royle, C. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Sargood, R. Wigg, Colonel G. E. Mainwaring, W. H. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Wilkes, Maj. L. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Wilkins, W. A. Mann, Mrs. J. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Shurmer, P. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Williams, D. J. (Neath) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Skeffington, A. M. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Mathers, G. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Medland, H. M. Skinnard, F. W. Williamson, T. Messer, F. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Willis, E. Middleton, Mrs. L. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wills, Mrs. E. A. Mikardo, Ian Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Wilson, J. H. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Smith, T. (Normanton) Wise, Major F. J. Morley, R. Snow, Capt. J. W. Woodburn, A. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Solley, L. J. Woods, G. S. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Yates, V. F. Mort, D. L. Sparks, J. A. Zilliacus, K. Moyle, A. Steele, T. Murray, J. D. Stephen, C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Nally, W. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons Neal, H. (Claycross) Strauss, G. R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Stross, Dr. B.
NOES. Aitken, Hon. M. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Amory, D. Heathcoat Cuthbert, W. N. Haughton, S. G. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Darling, Sir W. Y. Head, Brig. A. H. Astor, Hon. M. Davidson, Viscountess Hope, Lord J. Baldwin, A. E. De la Bère, R. Howard, Hon. A. Barlow, Sir J. Digby, Maj. S. W. Hulbert, N. J. Baxter, A. B. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hurd, A Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Drayson, Capt. G. B. Jarvis, Sir J. Bower, N. Drewe, C. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Eccles, D. M. Keeling, E. H. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Erroll, Col. F. J. Lambert, G. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Langford-Holt, J. Carson, E. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Channon, H. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Clarke, Col. R. S. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Linstead, H. N. Clifton-Brown. Lt.-Col. G. Gates, Maj. E. E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Cole, T. L. Glyn, Sir R. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Cooper-Key, E. M. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Gridley, Sir A. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Grimston, R. V. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hare, Lieut.-Col Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) MacLeod, Capt. J. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Raikes, H. V. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Ramsay, Maj. S. Teeling, William Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Rayner, Brig. R. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Marsden, Capt. A. Renton, D. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Touche, G. C. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Ropner, Col. L. Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. Mellor, Sir J. Ross, Sir R. Walker-Smith, D. Molson, A. H. E. Sanderson, Sir F. Ward, Hon. G. R. Morrison, Maj. J. C. (Salisbury) Savory, Prof. D. L. Wheatley, M. J. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Scott, Lord W. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Shephard, S. (Newark) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Nield, B. (Chester) Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Williams, C. (Torquay) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Smithers, Sir W. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Osborne, C. Snadden, W. M. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Spearman, A. C. M. York, C. Pickthorn, K. Spence, Maj. H. R. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Pitman, I. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Prescott, W. R. S. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Major Mott-Radclyffe and Commander Agnew Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Studholme, H. G.
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 143.
Division No. 67.] AYES. [1.10 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hewitson, Capt. M. Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Deer, G. Hicks, G. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Delargy, Captain H. J. Hobson, C. R. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Diamond, J. Horabin, T. L. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Dobbie, W. House, G. Attewell, H. C. Donovan, T. Hoy, J. Austin, H. L. Douglas, F. C. R. Hubbard, T. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Driberg, T. E. N. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Bacon, Miss A. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Baird, Capt. J. Dumpleton, C. W. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Balfour, A. Durbin, E. F. M. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Dye, S. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Barton, C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Bechervaise, A. E. Edelman, M. Irving, W. J. Bellenger, F. J. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Berry, H. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Janner, B. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Ewart, R. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Fairhurst, F. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Farthing, W. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Binns, J. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Blenkinsop, Capt A. Follick, M. Keenan, W. Blyton, W. R. Foot, M. M. Kenyon, C. Boardman, H. Forman, J. C. King, E. M. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Foster, W. (Wigan) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kinley, J Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Freeman, Peter (Newport) Lang, G. Brook, D. (Halifax) Gaitskell, H. T. N. Lavers, S. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Gallacher, W. Lee, F. (Hulme) Brown, George (Belper) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Brown, T. J. (Ince) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Leonard, W. Buchanan, G. Gibbins, J. Leslie, J. R. Burden, T. W. Gibson, C. W. Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Burke, W. A. Gilzean, A. Levy, B. W. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Goodrich, H. E. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Champion, A. J. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Lindgren, G. S. Chater, D. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Grenfell, D. R. Logan, D. G. Cobb, F. A. Grierson, E. Longden, F. Cocks, F. S. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Lyne, A. W. Coldrick, W. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly) McAllister, G. Collick, P. Griffiths, Capt W. D. (Moss Side) McEntee, V. La T. Collindridge, F. Gunter, Capt. R. J. McGhee, H. G. Collins, V. J. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) McGovern, J. Comyns, Dr. L. Hale, Leslie Mack, J. D. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Corlett, Dr. J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. McKinlay, A. S. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) McLeavy, F. Daggar, G. Hardman, D. R. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Daines, P. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mainwaring, W. H. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Haworth, J. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Mann, Mrs. J Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Herbison, Miss M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Rhodes, H. Thorneycroft, H Mathers, G. Robens, A. Tiffany, S. Medland, H. M. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Timmons, J. Messer, F. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Tolley, L. Middlelon, Mrs. L. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Rogers, G. H. R. Turner-Samuels, M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Royle, C. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Morley, R. Sargood, R. Usborne, Henry Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.) Sharp, Lt.-Col G. M. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) Wadsworth, G. Mort, D. L. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Walkden, E. Moyle, A. Shurmer, P. Walker, G. H. Murray, J. D. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Nally, W. Skeffington, A. M. Warbey, W. N. Neal, H. (Claycross) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Watkins, T. E. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Skinnard, F. W. Watson, W. M. Noel-Buxton, Lady Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Weitzman, D. O'Brien, T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Oldfield, W. H. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Orbach, M. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Paget, R. T. Smith, T. (Normanton) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Snow, Capt. J. W. Wigg, Colonel G. E. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Solley, L. J. Wilkes, Maj. L. Palmer, A. M. F. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Wilkins, W. A. Pargiter, G. A. Sparks, J. A. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Parker, J. Steele, T. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Stephen, C. Williams, D. J. (Neath) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Paton, J. (Norwich) Strauss, G. R. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Peart, Capt. T. F. Stross, Dr. B. Williamson, T. Perrins, W. Stubbs, A. E. Willis, E. Piratin, P. Summerskill, Dr. Edith Wills, Mrs. E. A. Popplewell, E. Swingler, Capt. S. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Porter, E. (Warrington) Symonds, Maj. A. L. Wilson, J. H. Pritt, D. N. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wise, Major F. J. Proctor, W. T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Woodburn, A Pursey, Cmdr. H. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Woods, G. S. Randall, H. E. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Yates, V. F. Rankin, J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Zilliacus, K. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Reeves, J. Thomas, George (Cardiff) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Reid, T. (Swindon) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons
NOES. Aitken, Hon. M. Erroll, Col. F. J. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Amory, D. Heathcoat Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Astor, Hon. M. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Manningham-Buller, R. E. Baldwin, A. E. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Marsden, Capt. A. Barlow, Sir J. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Baxter, A. B. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Gates, Maj. E. E. Mellor, Sir J. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Glyn, Sir R. Molson, A. H. E. Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Bower, N. Gridley, Sir A. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Grimston, R. V. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Nield, B. (Chester) Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Haughton, S. G. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Head, Brig. A. H. Osborne, C. Butcher, H. W. Hope, Lord J. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Carson, E. Howard, Hon. A. Pickthorn, K. Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Hulbert, N. J. Pitman, I. J. Channon, H. Hurd, A. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Clarke, Col. R. S. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Cole, T. L. Jarvis, Sir J Raikes, H. V. Cooper-Key, E. M. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Ramsay, Maj. S. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Keeling, E. H. Rayner, Brig. R. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lambert, G. Renton, D. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Cuthbert, W. N. Langford-Holt, J. Ropner, Col. L. Darling, Sir W. Y. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Ross, Sir R. Davidson, Viscountess Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sanderson, Sir F. De la Bère, R. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Savory, Prof. D. L. Digby, Maj. S. W. Linstead, H. N. Scott, Lord W. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Shephard, S. (Newark) Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Drayson, Capt. G. B. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Smithers, Sir W. Drewe, C. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Snadden, W. M. Eccles, D. M. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Spearman, A. C. M. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. MacLeod, Capt. J. Spence, Maj. H. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Touche, G. C. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Studholme, H. G. Walker-Smith, D. York, C. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Ward, Hon. G. R. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Wheatley, M. J. Teeling, William White, Sir D. (Fareham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Major Mott-Radclyffe and Commander Agnew Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Williams, C. (Torquay)
1.15 a.m.
I beg to move, in line 26, to leave out from the first word "compensation," to end of sub-paragraph.
I do not think that the Government can possibly refuse to allow this Amendment, for the reasons which I am going to explain. Yesterday I raised two points with regard to compensation for the interval between the vesting date, when the compensation right to take income from the concern ceases, to the date when they ultimately get compenstaion and, therefore, begin to get interest on the stock which is handed out to them. I raised the point, why different methods are adopted in the first two years when a share of the profits is payable and the remainder of the period—which I said might easily amount to another two years—when nothing is payable at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply gave an explanation—not, to our minds, a very satisfactory explanation, but still, some explanation—about the assessment of the compensation for the first two years. Of course, we have not yet got the words of the right hon. Gentleman in print, but according to my recollection—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said nothing at all to justify the difference in treatment between the first two years and the remainder of the period; nor did he say anything at all to justify the fact that no revenue was payable after the elapse of two years during the ensuing period. Not one word of justification do I remember, either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the right hon. Gentleman in opening, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with this point. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that we have had no answer on this point at all as yet. But that does not end the matter, because I certainly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to excuse his not giving me an answer by saying that this could be raised on the Committee stage. That is my firm impression.
I am bound to say, I was to some extent at fault because I ought to have remembered that the Financial Resolution precluded it, but I did not have the Financial Resolution in front of me at the time. Therefore, I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, which I might have done, and probably the right hon. Gentleman did not remember that the Committee stage was out of the question by reason of his own Financial Resolution. The result is—whether by misfortune or whatever it may be—we are now completely prevented from dealing with this matter, technically, at any subsequent stage of this Bill unless the Financial Resolution is amended to-night. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not really desire that a perfectly proper point should be shut out from discussion by reason of one of these technicalities. I said a few words earlier in the evening about the too tight drawing up of Financial Resolutions. One could not find a better example than this. I do ask the Financial Secretary why he has gratuitously inserted in this paragraph the words, "for two years." Why put those words in the Financial Resolution? It can be for no other purpose than to prevent legitimate discussion. I think it would have been very much better if the paragraph had ended at the end of the first line and a half. If the 'hon. Gentleman had seen any reason to refer to the remaining five lines he could have put them all in, if he wanted to, but left out "for two years." We can discuss and move Amendments on the Committee stage as to whether the payment during the first two years should be 50, 60 or 100 per cent. We are allowed to do that because the Financial Resolution does not tie us to 50 per cent., but we cannot raise the much more important question of there being no income available after the first two years. For what reason is the Resolution so drafted that we are precluded from raising that point? That is the first point.
The second point is this. In view of the misapprenhension of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, would it not be right, without going deeply into the merits of the matter, to avoid any further, controversy by allowing this matter to go a stage further to the Committee upstairs? It will not take very long. It is a simple point and one which can be discussed in a very short time. I would certainly ask the Government, as reasonable people, to remove this reference to the two years so that we can discuss this very vital point properly on the Committee stage. The House, or a Committee of the Whole House, can never have another opportunity to discuss this question. I think it would be very unfair of the Government, apart from being very wrong in principle, if they did not give us an opportunity of raising this matter properly in Committee, when I think I can promise them that the discussion would not be unduly prolonged. It would take a little time because this is a very important point, but there is no desire to do more than have a proper discussion of this question, and if the Government do not give us the Amendment proper discussion is out of the question.
We would like to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), of course, but we are unable to accept this Amendment because the insertion of "two years" is really vital to the work that we have in hand [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that if no date is put in, the thing will not be speeded up, and we want to see it speeded up and completed within the two years. It is our view that, with that incentive embodied in the Resolution, it will be possible to do that.
Perhaps I may briefly remind the Committee of what these payments are. These payments are authorised in order to provide interim income pending the satisfaction of the full compensation which is to be paid to the companies and firms taken over.
Hon. Members opposite are talking so loudly that we cannot hear their own Minister.
As the Committee knows, there is a vesting date which is—
On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I call your attention to the fact that, with the best will in the world, no Member of the Committee who wishes to listen to the hon. Gentleman can do so because of the constant conversation from below the Gangway? May I respectfully ask that we may have order, so that we may hear the Financial Secretary?
I would ask hon. Members not to interrupt' the Financial Secretary. I am sure the Committee desire to get through the business as soon as possible.
May I draw attention, Major Milner, to the fact that the chief offender, so far as interrupting Ministers is concerned, is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)?
I was reminding the Committee what the payments referred to in the Amendment are. They provide that, pending final settlement, between the vesting date and the determination of the final compensation, it would be fair and just that the company concerned should have some income. Once the vesting date has been decided, any income that accrues will, naturally, go to the Board. Therefore, this provision is that certain sums should be fixed which shall go to the companies concerned.
We have laid it down that that income shall accrue only for a period of two years. I do not know from where the right hon. and learned Gentleman for Hillhead got his figure of four years.
Experience.
It is our expectation that before the four years, in fact, in the majority of cases, well within the two years, the settlements will be made. Suppose for the sake of argument that the gloomy outlook of the right hon. and learned Gentleman should actually obtain. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has thought of everything and he has thought of this, in order that the Bill shall be perfectly fair to the mine-owners in every particular, right down to the last jot and tittle. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to Clause 18 (3) of the Bill he will see that, supposing the worst fears of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are realised, that provison is there for compensation to be paid, if the matter has not been finally settled by that time.
When will that be?
I cannot say when, but the Clause will be passed. When it is accepted by the House it will become the law of the land. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take it that it will be done.
The hon. Gentleman has said that compensation will be paid, but he will note that the provision is, "may be" paid.
The provision may be made by regulation, but it may not be necessary to make it. The Minister concerned is not going to undertake to make regulations which may never be needed. We have a Labour Government in Office, and that Government moves with speed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Housing."] It hopes and believes that, well within the period, matters of this kind will be settled. If, by any possible chance, it happened to fall out that in one or two instances further time was essential, there it is, provided in Clause 18, for the Minister of the day to act upon. That being so, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those associated with him to believe this. I am positive that what he wants to do is to improve the Bill and to help the mineowners to get all their compensation at the earliest possible moment. I can assure him that the inclusion of the two years is going to help the mining industry, the mineowners, the Government and the country, and I hope that he will be willing to do the proper thing both by his Party and the State and withdraw his Amendment.
1.30 a.m.
There seems to be very little between us, and it would be a pity if we could not come to an understanding in the matter. As I understand it, what the hon. Gentleman contemplates is that at the end of the two years the capital stock should immediately be issued to the company and, as soon as that stock is issued, of course, interest will be allowed to run on. If the hon. Gentleman will undertake that in every case where the two years is exceeded, that stock will be issued so that the income flows evenly on, then I think that will be all right. The way we ought to do it would be by altering "may" to "shall" and if the hon. Gentleman will say that that will be done, then I think we would be satisfied. It will leave it open to the Government and I do not think they will take advantage of that loophole. I think they would pay three-quarters or nearly all of that estimated compensation and therefore if the hon. Gentleman will agree to meet this by amending the Clause in Committee—I see the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but may I say that he has talked about things moving quickly in the Labour Government. Perhaps persons will move quickly also. It is not at all certain that, in two years' time, we shall have exactly the same people in office as we have now. I am perfectly prepared to think about the people who are going to be there next week, but as it is going to be a matter of two years I think it ought not to be left merely on some undertaking of a general character. I think it should be incorporated in that Bill. It could be done that way, and there would be no difficulty at all about it. The hon. Gentleman is apparently quite clear about it. He has made up his mind on what he wants. Why should there be this tendency in this Government to say one thing and then put a different thing in the Bill? I do ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. We agree that what he wants is right. Why not acknowledge our point of view, by inserting it in the Bill.
While the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite has been listening, I have seen him nodding his head one way or the other and I think that, in another moment or two, he will have made up his mind. If he is going to make a decision, why not wait a moment or two longer to make certain about it? The right hon. Gentleman who has been speaking from the Front Opposition Bench said that we might not always have the same persons on the Government Front Bench, and that things and persons moved very fast. From the actions of the Financial Secretary and his very persuasive manner, I beg to wonder if even two years are necessary. Why not make it one? That might be better. It might be possible to do something on those lines. I do not want to suggest anything at the present time, because I think the hon. Gentleman is going to make a decision on this point. But I would say one more thing on this suggestion before I sit down. Sometimes people get summoned to the other place. It may happen to him. It happens to all sorts of people. I feel sure that he would like the Government to go a little further to meet us. He looks now even more like it than he did a few minutes ago.
The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench made a very reasonable suggestion which should appeal to both sides of the Committee. I really think we might have some explanation of why it has not been accepted.
I listened to my right hon. Friend from this side of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I know there has been a perfect hum of conversation from the benches opposite all the time my right hon. Friend was talking, and it was for that reason very difficult for some of us to hear him. But I did hear a good argument put forward by him. All the time my right hon. Friend was speaking, I watched the face of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I saw a great deal of assent in his actions. He moved his head up and down and that suggested to me agreement. But we have not yet had an answer from the Minister on the points raised by my right hon. Friend. I hope before we are asked to vote on this matter, we shall have a reply from the Minister to the points raised by my right hon. Friend. After all, if the Minister shakes his head in agreement, presumably he is agreeing with what my right hon. Friend has said. If he shakes his head the other way, we should understand that he meant disagreement. At any rate let us have an explanation from the Minister in reply to the points raised from the Opposition Front Bench.
I have sat through the discussion of many Motions in this House. I feel that this is the first occasion that I have been able to approach these matters with a lucidity which possibly the unusual hour seems to engender. I was impressed by the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid). I am a Scotsman. I have not always shared his opinions, but I think he has expressed words of very great clarity which I think will command an answer from the Minister. I am concerned, however, with this problem of the two years. It is one which raises anxieties in my mind. It will be observed that when it comes to the paying of compensation under the provisions, which we have passed, the Minister is unable to say what amount it can be, so that there is, as I understand it, a horrible vagueness. When it comes to spending money we are not to know how much is to be required. There are very large sums—
As the hon. Member has pointed out, we are already past that.
While there is a vagueness in certain other paragraphs to which I am not permitted to refer, in this paragraph we come down with remarkable precision to a period of two years. Why not one year? This is a Labour Government which gets things done. Why not a year? If this is a good thing to do—I am not yet convinced, but I have had a long time in which to listen to arguments in support of the Government's view—if this is a good thing, why linger, why stand on the order of going? "Let us go to it," was, I think, the historic saying. Let us get it done in one year. If this is the painful process, some of us are inclined to believe there is something to be said for the view that we should get it over in a year. There is on this side of the Committee a Conservative Member who intends to vote for the Government because he believes this midsummer madness must be gone through, before sanity can be restored. If that is his view it gives point to this figure of two years. In the last war it will be remembered we were enlisted for three years or the duration of the war.
I am sorry but that is a question which, however interesting, does not arise. I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to the matter before the Committee.
It may well be a trying period. We are entitled to address ourselves to it with a high degree of seriousness. I am, in some ways, concerned about the conditions of such compensation. These are unspecified. Compensation, I understand: but addition to compensation is a matter of some obscurity to me. That may be cleared up when the Minister makes his reply.
But what brought me to my feet is the important question of two years. I feel that if the Government have the confidence—and they are entitled to have every confidence, backed as they are by such a remarkable galaxy of talent—and to have some knowledge of the Minister in another place—by which I mean the country in which he spent perhaps his most distinguished part of his early career—two years will be far too long for him, and he will accelerate his motion.
1.45 a.m.
I hope the Committee will receive an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, who seemed, a few moments ago, on the verge of giving it. If I understood the Financial Secretary
aright, the purpose of putting two years into this Financial Resolution is to apply a spur to the tribunal in fixing the compensation. I suggest to the Committee that, if such a spur is necessary, the proper place to put it is in the Bill. I think the Committee are entitled to an explanation of why it was though necessary to put this two years into the Financial Resolution as distinct from the Bill.
rose his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 139.
Division No. 68.] AYES. [1.45 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Diamond, J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Dobbie, W. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Douglas, F. C. R. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Driberg, T. E. N. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Attewell, H. C. Dumpleton, C. W Irving, W. J Austin, H. L. Durbin, E. F. M. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Dye, S. Janner, B. Bacon, Miss A. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Baird, Capt. J Edelman, M. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Balfour, A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Barton, C. Ewart, R. Keenan, W. Bechervaise, A. E Fairhurst, F. Kenyon, C. Bellenger, F. J. Farthing, W. J. King, E. M. Berry, H. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Follick, M. Kinley, J. Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Foot, M. M. Lang, G. Binns, J. Forman, J. C. Lavers, S. Blenkinsop, Capt A. Foster, W. (Wigan) Lee, F. (Hulme) Blyton, W. R. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Lee Miss J. (Cannock) Boardman, H. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Leonard, W. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Gaitskell, H. T. N Leslie, J. R. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Gallacher, W. Lever, Fl. Oft. N. H. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Levy, B. W. Brook, D. (Halifax) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Gibbins, J. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Brown, George (Belper) Gibson, C. W. Lindgren, G. S. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Gilzean, A. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Buchanan, G. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Logan, D. G. Burden, T. W. Goodrich, H E. Longden, F. Burke, W. A. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Lyne, A. W. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. McAllister, G. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Grenfell, D. R. McEntee, V. La T. Champion, A. J. Grierson, E. McGhee, H. G. Chater, D. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McGovern, J. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Mack, J. D. Cobb, F. A. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W) Cocks, F. S. Gunter, Capt. R. J. McKinlay, A. S. Coldrick, W. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) McLeavy, F. Collick, P. Hale, Leslie Macpherson, T. (Romford) Collindridge, F. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Mainwaring, W. H. Collins, V. J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Comyns, Dr. L Hannan, W (Maryhill) Mann, Mrs. J Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G Hardman, D. R Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Corlett, Dr. J. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Haworth, J. Marshall, F. (Brightside) Daggar, G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Mathers, G. Daines, P. Herbison, Miss M. Medland, H. M Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hewitson, Capt. M Messer, F. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hobson, C. R Middleton, Mrs. L. Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Horabin, T L Mikardo, Ian Davies, Ernest (Enfield) House, G. Mitchison, Maj. G R Davies, S. O (Merthyr) Hoy, J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Deer, G. Hubbard, T. Morley, R. Delargy, Captain H. J Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Rogers, G. H. R. Tolley, L. Mort, D. L. Royle, C. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Moyle, A. Sargood, R. Turner-Samuels, M. Murray, J. D. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Nally, W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Usborne, Henry Neal, H. (Claycross) Shurmer, P. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wadsworth, G. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Simmons, C. J. Walkden, E. Noel-Buxton, Lady Skeffington, A. M. Walker, G. H. O'Brien, T. Skinnard, F. W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Oldfield, W. H. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Warbey, W. N. Orbach, M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Watkins, T. E. Paget, R. T. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Watson, W. M. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Weitzman, D. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Smith, T. (Normanton) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Palmer, A. M. F. Snow, Capt. J. W. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Pargiter, G. A. Solley, L. J. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Sparks, J. A. Wigg, Colonel G. E. Paton, J. (Norwich) Steele, T. Wilkes, Maj. L. Pearson, A. Stephen, C. Wilkins, W. A. Peart, Capt. T. F. Stokes, R. R. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Perrins, W. Strauss, G. R. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Piratin, P. Stross, Dr. B. Williams, D. J. (Neath) Popplewell, E Stubbs, A. E. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Porter, E. (Warrington) Summerskill, Dr. Edith Williams, W. R. (Heston) Pritt, D. N. Swingler, Capt. S. Williamson, T. Proctor, W. T. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Willis, E. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wills, Mrs. E. A. Randall, H. E. Taylor, R. J (Morpeth) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Rankin, J. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Wilson, J. H. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Wise, Major F. J. Reeves, J. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Woodburn, A. Reid, T. (Swindon) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Woods, G. S. Rhodes, H. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Yates, V. F. Robens, A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, F.) Zilliacus, K. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Thorneycroft, H. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Tiffany, S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Timmons, J. Mr. Joseph Henderson and Captain Michael Stewart
NOES. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Mallor, Sir J. Aitken, Hon. M. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Molson, A. H. E. Amory, D. Heathcoat Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Astor, Hon. M. Gates, Maj. E. E. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Baldwin, A. E. Glyn, Sir R. Nield, B. (Chester) Barlow, Sir J. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Baxter, A. B. Gridley, Sir A. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Grimston, R. V. Osborne C. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Pickthorn, K. Bower, N. Haughton, S. G. Pitman, I. J. Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Head, Brig. A. H. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Hope, Lord J. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Howard, Hon. A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Hulbert, N. J. Raikes, H. V. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hurd, A. Ramsay, Maj S. Butcher, H. W. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Rayner, Brig. R. Carson, E. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Jarvis, Sir J. Renton, D. Channon, H. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Clarke, Col. R. S. Keeling, E. H. Ropner, Col. L. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Ross, Sir R. Cooper-Key, E. M. Lambert, G. Sanderson, Sir F. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Savory, Prof. D. L. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Scott, Lord W. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shephard, S. (Newark) Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Cuthbert W. N. Linstead, H. N. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Darling, Sir W. Y. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Smithers, Sir W. Davidson, Viscountess Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Snadden, W. M. De la Bère, R. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Spearman, A. C. M. Digby, Maj. S. W. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Spence, Maj. H. R. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon O. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) MacLeod, Capt. J. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Eccles, D. M. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'fn, S.) Eden, Rt. Hon. A Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Teeling, William Erroll, Col. F. J. Marsden, Capt. A. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Touche, G. C. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. White, J. B. (Canterbury) York, C. Walker-Smith, D. Williams, C. (Torquay) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) Ward, Hon. G. R. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Wheatley, M. J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme
Question put accordingly. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 140.
Division No. 69.] AYES. [1.57 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Follick, M. McEntee, V. La T. Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Foot, M. M. McGhee, H. G. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V. Forman, J. C McGovern, J. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Foster, W. (Wigan) Mack, J. D. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Attewell, H. C. Freeman, Peter (Newport) McKinlay, A. S. Austin, H. L. Gaitskell, H. T. N. McLeavy, F. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Gallacher, W. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Bacon, Miss A. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mainwaring, W. H. Baird, Capt. J. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Balfour, A. Gibbins, J. Mann, Mrs. J. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Gibson, C. W. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Barton, C. Gilzean, A. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Bechervaise, A. E Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Bellenger, F. J. Goodrich, H. E. Mathers, G. Berry, H. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Medland, H. M. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Messer, F. Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Grenfell, D. R. Middleton, Mrs. L. Binns, J. Grierson, E. Mikardo, Ian Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Blyton, W. R. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Boardman, H. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Morley, R. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Hale, Leslie Mort, D. L. Brook, D. (Halifax) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Moyle, A Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Murray, J. D. Brown, George (Belper) Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Nally, W. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hardman, D. R. Neal, H. (Claycross) Buchanan, G. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Burden, T. W Haworth, J Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Burke, W. A. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Noel-Buxton, Lady Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Herbison, Miss M. O'Brien, T. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Hobson, C. R Oldfield, W. H. Champion, A. J. Horabin, T. L. Orbach, M. Chater, D. House, G. Paget, R. T. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Hoy, J. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Cobb, F. A. Hubbard, T. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Cocks, F. S. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Palmer, A. M. F. Coldrick, W. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pargiter, G. A. Collick, P. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Collindridge. F Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Collins, V. J. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Comyns, Dr. L. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pearson, A. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Irving, W. J. Peart, Capt. T. F. Corlett, Dr. J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Perrins, W. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Janner, B. Piratin, P. Daggar, G. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Popplewell, E. Daines, P. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jones, D T. (Hartlepools) Pritt, D. N. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Proctor, W. T. Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Keenan, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Kenyon, C Randall, H. E. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) King, E. M. Rankin, J. Deer, G. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Delargy, Captain H. J Kinley, J. Reeves, J. Diamond, J. Lang, G. Reid, T. (Swindon) Dobbie, W. Lavers, S. Rhodes, H. Douglas, F. C. R. Lee, F. (Hulme) Robens, A. Driberg, T. E. N. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Leonard, W. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Dumpleton, C. W. Leslie, J. R. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Durbin, E. F. M. Lever, FI. Off. N. H. Rogers, G. H. R. Dye, S. Levy, B. W. Royle, C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Sargood, R. Edelman, M. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Lindgren, G. S. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Shurmer, P. Ewart, R. Logan, D. G. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Fairhurst, F. Longden, F. Simmons, C. J. Farthing, W. J. Lyne, A. W. Skeffington, A. M. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) McAllister, G. Skinnard, F. W. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wigg, Colonel G E. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Wilkes, Maj. L. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Thorneycroft, H. Wilkins, W. A. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Tiffany, S. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Smith, T. (Normanton) Timmons, J Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Snow, Capt. J. W. Tolley, L. Williams, D. J. (Neath) Solley, L. J. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Turner-Samuels, M. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Sparks, J. A Ungoed-Thomas, L. Williamson, T. Steele, T. Usborne, Henry Willis, E. Stephen, C. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Wills, Mrs. E A. Stokes, R. R Wadsworth, G Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Strauss, G. R Walkden, E. Wilson, J. H. Stross, Dr. B. Walker, G. H. Wise, Major F. J Stubbs, A. E. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Woodburn, A Swingler, Capt. S Warbey, W. N Woods, G. S. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Watkins, T. E Yates, V. F. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Watson, W. M Zilliacus, K. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Weitzman, D. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Wells, W. T (Walsall) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Mr. J. Henderson and Captain Michael Stewart Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
NOES. Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Pitman, I. J. Amory, D. Heathcoat Gridley, Sir A. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Assheton, Rt. Hon. R Grimston, R. V. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Astor, Hon. M. Hare, Lieut.-Col Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Baldwin, A. E. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Raikes, H. V. Barlow, Sir J. Haughton, S. G. Ramsay, Maj. S. Baxter, A. B. Head, Brig. A. H. Rayner, Brig. R. Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead) Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Howard, Hon. A Renton, D. Bower, N. Hulbert, N. J Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ropner, Col. L. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Jarvis, Sir J. Ross, Sir R. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Sanderson, Sir F. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Keeling, E. H. Savory, Prof. D. L. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Kinley, J. Scott, Lord W Butcher, H. W. Lambert, G. Shephard, S. (Newark) Carson, E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Channon, H. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Smithers, Sir W. Clarke, Col. R. S. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Snadden, W. M. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Linstead, H. N. Spearman, A. C. M. Cooper-Key, E. M. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Spence, Maj. H. R. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne) Cuthbert, W. N. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Darling, Sir W. Y. MacLeod, Capt. J. Teeling, William Davidson, Viscountess Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) De la Bère, R. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Digby, Maj. S. W. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Marsden, Capt. A. Touche, G. C. Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Marshall. Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Walker-Smith, D. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Mellor, Sir J. Ward, Hon. G. R. Eccles, D. M. Molson, A. H. E Wheatley, M. J. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) White, Sir D. (Fareham) Erroll, Col. F. J. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Williams, C. (Torquay) Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Nield, B. (Chester) Willoughby de Eresby, Lore Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Orr-Ewing, I. L. York, C. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Osborne, C. Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick) Gates, Maj. E. E. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Glyn, Sir R Pickthorn, K. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Major Milner, to the fact that the Closure Motion has been moved and accepted twice by you within an hour, and, with very great respect, may I ask you if it is the intention of the Chair to create a precedent with this Bill which raises a matter—
Is the hon. Member questioning my Ruling?
I asked, with very great respect, if it was your intention to set a precedent by allowing the Motion for Closure to be discussed twice within an hour with this rapidity. That is all I asked, with very great respect.
The matter is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.
Further to that point of Order—
No point of Order arises.
I beg to move, in line 39, leave out "Minister," and insert "Treasury."
I suggest that we might discuss also the next Amendment, in line 39, leave out "by way of recouping," and insert "sufficient to recoup." It covers the same point. We have taken the view that in too many of these paragraphs there is too much of "the Minister." On the financial side it would be better if the sums referred to in the Resolution were paid direct to the Treasury rather than via the Minister. That is the short point. The further proposal in the Resolution is that the payments should be
Clause 41, if hon. Members cannot remember what that is about, is the one dealing with coal selling schemes.
2.15 a.m.
All these payments, which have to be made as a result of the expenses and liabilities incurred should be completely recouped, and it is in order to bring that point out that the Amendment was put down. If the Minister, or his legal advisers, would state that "by way of recouping" means exactly the same as "sufficient to recoup", my argument falls to the ground. If the Minister accepts the other amendment and leaves out the word "Minister" it would mean the money would go direct to the Treasury. It would be a much simpler way, an easier thing, if this responsibility were removed from the right hon. Gentleman's heavily burdened shoulders and put upon the broad back of the Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman has lost none of his cunning, in spite of having been in a Government Department for quite a long time, and incidentally in a Government Department responsible for a large measure of State ownership. But that is by the way, although it is a fascinating subject on which I could address the Committee at great length, but for the presence, with great respect, of the Chairman. He has made a simple request. It is that we should make this concession to enable him and his colleagues to argue this matter out on the Committee stage. He wants to make it arguable, but there is really nothing to argue about. We had better dispose of the matter here and now.
I think the right hon. Gentleman is one Amendment behind himself because I listened carefully to what my right hon. and gallant Friend had to say, and he did not make any mention of arguing it out on the Committee stage.
The right hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to what his colleague has to say. He has been lumping the two Amendments together and I am dealing with these two Amendments.
On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the leader of the Liberal Party to make a long speech without standing?
If we could address you, Major Milner, while retaining our seats, we could discuss these matters more reasonably and more comfortably, for we understand we are going to be here a long time yet. I gather that that is the intention of the Opposition, for they are very anxious to argue the matter out. I say we are dealing first with the Amendment which proposes that in place of the word "Minister" we should substitute the word "Treasury". I should like to ask the Opposition a question. They have asked a number themselves, so I ask them one. On which leg do they stand? I have listened with infinite patience, and, if I may say so, with characteristic modesty and remarkable restraint, to the arguments, adduced by the other side when we were discussing the Bill, on the subject of the rigidity, almost the immorality, of Treasury control. It will be in the recollection of the Committee when I say that we were told that it was highly improper that we should accept provisions which in effect meant that the Treasury would exercise too rigid a control. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was questioned and almost castigated because he sought to employ a device which is customarily within the scope of the Treasury in matters of this kind.
What are we asked to do? We are asked to agree that repayments arising out of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund to the National Coal Board should be repaid to the Treasury without any consultation with the Minister at all. Who is the person responsible? It is the Minister who sets up the Coal Board. It is the Minister who is responsible for general directions. It is the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. Yet for some unaccountable reason—certainly it was not explained by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—rwe are now asked to set aside the Minister's responsibility and authority in this connection and place it on the shoulders of the Treasury. Well, we resist that. Somebody has got to be responsible, and we suggest that it should be the Minister. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hitler"] There is no question of dictation. Unlike Mr. Hitler, the Minister can be questioned in this House. Therefore, there is no question of dictatorship. That is the first point, and I hope it will be clearly understood that on this issue at least we are not giving way.
We are asked to give way also on the second Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked whether there is any difference between the words "By way of recouping the Crown" and "Sufficient to recoup." There is a considerable difference. It is quite clear what is meant. The matter was argued at some length when we were discussing the Bill. The implication of the provision in the Bill, which was projected into the Financial Resolution, on which we stand, is that a reasonable amount of latitude should be afforded to the Board in the recoupment of the finance made available to the Board by the Treasury. That is the intention; it is to place a definite and rigid liability on the Board to recoup sufficiently, by which is meant exact amounts, but with the necessary latitude which would be required in all circumstances. To do otherwise would be to place an undue burden on the Board, which we are not ready to accept. That is the position. I think that is a. perfectly reasonable point of view. It might have been reasonable if, instead of placing certain liabilities on the Board, as we are doing, allowing reasonable latitude in repayment, we had made direct grants to the Board for the purpose of development and expansion. It would have been reasonable, and, indeed, I had the point in mind, to make financial grants to the Board for the purpose of development and expansion, having regard to the neglect that has surrounded the industry for so long. But we came to the conclusion that, having regard to all the circumstances, we could not afford to take that chance. Therefore, owing to the condition of the industry and because of the need for considerable expansion, which involves much expenditure, and having regard to the fact—and I am ready to admit it—that the operations of the Board, to some extent, at least, can be speculative, as they would have been if the industry had been left to private enterprise, we thought it desirable that some latitude should be afforded to the Board in the recoupment of the finance which will be available to it.
May I ask what the Minister means by "latitude"? Does he mean latitude with regard to time, that repayment shall be over a longer period, or, in fact, that there should not be complete repayment?
No. The Board must pay its way. It must meet its outgoings over an average of good and bad years. If the Board should default, as is implicitly stated in the Bill, explanations must be given to the House and due account must be made. "Latitude" simply means that the Treasury should direct, after consultation with the Minister, who is in close touch with the Board, repayments in accordance with the special circumstances of the time.
These attempts which are now being made to impose this burden and liability on the Board are wrecking proposals. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—and I credit them with sincerity; what right have I to say anything contrary to that, for we must believe in each other's sincerity and good will in these matters?—have declared that, in spite of their opposition to the principle of nationalisation, or to the provisions of this Bill, they recognise the inevitability of its passage and that it was desirable, in the interests of the nation, that it should succeed. It will do none of us any good if it fails. We bear a dreadful responsibility in this regard, every one of us, and therefore it would be quite improper to do anything in connection with finance in relation to the Treasury which would make it difficult for the Board to undertake its activities. I hope in those circumstances that my right hon. Friends opposite will not press the Amendment.
2.30 a.m.
I think the right hon. Gentleman has engendered rather an unnecessary amount of heat or excitement in the manner in which he has addressed the Committee—
Not at all.
Just as I accept his sincerity and he accepts mine, as he was kind enough to say, I also accept his manner of speaking, which is always to dramatise rather these very simple points.
He has been good enough to tell us all we want to know and we are very grateful to him. We have put down an Amendment, as is not uncustomary in our proceedings, for the purpose of elucidation and having greater clarity upon the point. As I understand it, he has told us that the Board will be liable to pay back its obligations, but it will take its own time about doing so. If that should be necessary under a situation which may arise, I am bound to say I wish my own financial arrangements were made in so agreeable a way. The Board goes to the Minister, who goes to the Treasury and says, "This year it would not be convenient for us to pay very much. Perhaps we might pay a little on account." There is no time in which this total has to be repaid but it is an obligation which is recognised.
He has made the point perfectly clear and we are exceedingly grateful to him for the candour and openness with which he has now made it clear, that this is one of the many hidden subsidies which it is within the power of the Government to make, while not making it very clear to the nation that in fact it is a form of subsidy. With those observations, I conclude by saying we are grateful to him for the clarity and openness with which he has admitted this point. I do not think we need add very much to the discussion, as far as I am concerned, except to thank the Minister for his courtesy and candour. We hope to register our vote against what seems to us to be so unreasonable a proposal.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in line 39, to leave out "by way of recouping," and insert "sufficient to recoup.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 135.
Division No. 70.] AYES. [2.37 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Barton, C. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Bechervaise, A. E. Brook, D. (Halifax) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Bellenger, F. J. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Berry, H. Brown, George (Belper) Attewell, H. C. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Austin, H. L. Binns, J. Buchanan, G. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Burden, T. W. Bacon, Miss A. Blyton, W. R. Burke, W. A. Baird, Capt. J. Boardman, H. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Balfour, A. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Byers, Lt.-Col. F. Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Champion, A. J. Chater, D. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Robens, A. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Cobb, F. A. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Cocks, F. S. Keenan, W. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Coldrick, W. Kenyon, C. Rogers, G. H. R. Collick, P. King, E. M. Royle, C. Collins, V. J. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Sargood, R. Comyns, Dr. L. Kinley, J. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Lang, G. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Corlett, Dr. J. Lavers, S. Shurmer, P. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Lee, F. (Hulme) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Daggar, G. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Simmons, C. J. Daines, P. Leonard, W. Skeffington, A. M. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Leslie, J. R. Skinnard, F. W. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Lever, FI. Off. N. H. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Levy, B. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Deer, G. Lindgren, G. S. Smith, T. (Normanton) Delargy, Captain H. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Snow, Capt. J. W. Diamond, J. Logan, D. G. Solley, L. J. Dobbie, W. Longden, F. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Douglas, F. C. R. Lyne, A. W. Sparks, J. A. Driberg, T. E. N. McAllister, G. Steele, T. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) McEntee, V. La T. Stephen, C. Dumpleton, C. W. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Dye, S. McGovern, J. Stokes, R. R. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mack, J. D. Strauss, G. R. Edelman, M. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Stross, Dr. B. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McKinlay, A. S. Stubbs, A. E. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) McLeavy, F. Swingler, Capt. S. Ewart, R. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Symonds, Maj. A. L. Fairhurst, F. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Farthing, W. J. Mainwaring, W. H. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Taylor, Dr. S (Barnet) Follick, M. Mann, Mrs. J. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Foot, M. M. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Forman, J. C. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Thomas, John R. (Dover) Foster, W. (Wigan) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mathers, G. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Freeman, Peter (Newport) Medland, H. M. Thorneycroft, H. Gallacher, W. Messer, F. Tiffany, S. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Middleton, Mrs. L. Timmons, J. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Mikardo, Ian Tolley, L. Gibbins, J. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Gibson, C. W. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Turner-Samuels, M. Gilzean, A. Morley, R. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Usborne, Henry Goodrich, H. E. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Vernon, Maj. W. F. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Mort, D. L. Wadsworth, G Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Moyle, A. Walkden, E. Grenfell, D. R. Murray, J. D. Walker, G. H. Grierson, E. Nally, W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Neal, H. (Claycross) Warbey, W. N. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Watkins, T. E. Griffiths, Capt W. D. (Moss Side) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Watson, W. M. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Noel-Buxton, Lady Weitzman, D. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) O'Brien, T. Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Hale, Leslie Oldfield, W. H. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Orbach, M. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Paget, R. T. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Wigg, Colonel G. E. Hardman, D. R. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Wilkes, Maj. L. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Palmer, A. M. F. Wilkins, W. A. Haworth, J. Pargiter, G. A. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Williams, D. J. (Neath) Herbison, Miss M. Paton, J. (Norwich) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Hobson, C. R. Pearson, A. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Horabin, T. L. Peart, Capt. T. F. Williamson, T. House, G. Perrins, W. Willis, E. Hoy, J. Piratin, P. Wills, Mrs. E. A. Hubbard, T. Popplewell, E. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Porter, E. (Warrington) Wilson, J. H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pritt, D. N. Wise, Major F. J. Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Proctor, W. T. Woodburn, A. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Woods, G. S. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Randall, H. E. Yates, V. F. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rankin, J. Zilliacus, K. Irving, W. J. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Reeves, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES Janner, B. Reid, T. (Swindon) Captain Bing and Mr. Collindridge Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Rhodes, H.
NOES. Aitken, Hon. M. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Pickthorn, K. Amory, D. Heathcoat Gridley, Sir A. Pitman, I. J. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Grimston, R. V. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Astor, Hon. M. Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Baldwin, A. E. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Barlow, Sir J. Haughton, S. G. Raikes, H. V. Baxter, A. B. Head, Brig. A. H. Ramsay, Maj. S. Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hope, Lord J. Rayner, Brig. R. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Howard, Hon. A. Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead) Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hulbert, N. J. Robinson, Wing Comdr. Roland Bower, N. Hurd, A. Ropner, Col. L. Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ross, Sir R. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (O'gow, C.) Sanderson, Sir F. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Jarvis, Sir J. Savory, Prof. D. L. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Scott, Lord W. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Keeling, E. H. Shephard, S. (Newark) Butcher, H. W. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Carson, E. Lambert, G. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Smithers, Sir W. Channon, H. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Snadden, W. M. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Spearman, A. C. M. Clitherow, Dr. R. Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Spence, Maj. H. R. Cooper-Key, E. M. Linstead, H. N. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Studholme, H. G. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Cuthbert, W. N. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Darling, Sir W. Y. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Teeling, William De la Bère, R. MacLeod, Capt. J. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Digby, Major S. W. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Marsden, Capt. A. Touche, G. C. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. Drewe, C. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Walker-Smith, D. Eccles, D. M. Mellor, Sir J. Ward, Hon. G. R. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Molson, A. H. E. Wheatley, M. J. Erroll, Col. F. J. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) White, Sir D. (Fareham) Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) White, J. B. (Canterbury) Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Williams, C. (Torquay) Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Nield, B. (Chester) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. York, C. Gammans, Capt. L. D. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Gates, Maj. E. E. Osborne, C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES Glyn, Sir R. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Sir Arthur Young and Commander Agnew
Main Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 132.
Division No. 71.] AYES. [2.47 a.m. Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Champion, A. J. Ewart, R. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Chater, D. Fairhurst, F. Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Farthing, W. J. Attewell, H. C. Cobb, F. A. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Austin, H. L. Cocks, F. S. Follick, M. Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Coldrick, W. Foot, M. M. Bacon, Miss A. Collick, P. Forman, J. C. Baird, Capt. J. Collins, V. J. Foster, W. (Wigan) Balfour, A. Comyns, Dr. L. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Barton, C. Corlett, Dr. J. Gallacher, W. Bechervaise, A. E. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Bellenger, F. J. Daggar, G. Gibbins, J. Berry, H. Daines, P. Gibson, C. W. Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Gilzean, A. Binns, J. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Blenkinsop, Capt. A. Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Goodrich, H. E. Blyton, W. R. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Boardman, H. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Deer, G. Grenfell, D. R. Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Delargy, Captain H. J. Grierson, E. Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Diamond, J. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Brook, D. (Halifax) Dobbie, W. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Douglas, F. C. R. Griffiths, Capt W. D. (Moss Side) Brown, George (Belper) Driberg, T. E. N. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Buchanan, G. Dumpleton, C. W. Hale, Leslie Burden, T. W. Dye, S. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Burke, W. A. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Middleton, Mrs. L. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Hardman, D. R Mikardo, Ian Sparks, J. A. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Steele, T. Haworth, J. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Stephen, C. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Morley, R. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Stokes, R. R. Harbison, Miss M. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Strauss, G. R. Hobson, C. R. Mort, D. L. Stross, Dr. B. Horabin, T. L. Moyle, A. Stubbs, A. E. House, G. Murray, J. D. Swingler, Capt. S. Hoy, J. Nally, W. Symonds, Maj. A. L. Hubbard, T. Neal, H. (Claycross) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Noel-Buxton, Lady Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) O'Brien, T. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Oldfield, W. H. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Orbach, M. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Irving, W. J. Paget, R. T. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Thorneycroft, H. Janner, B. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Tiffany, S. Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Palmer, A. M. F. Timmons, J. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Pargiter, G. A. Tolley, L. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Turner-Samuels, M. Keenan, W. Paton, J. (Norwich) Ungoed-Thomas, L. Kenyon, C. Pearson, A. Usborne, Henry King, E. M. Peart, Capt. T. F. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Perrins, W. Wadsworth, G Kinley, J. Piratin, P. Walkden, E. Lang, G. Popplewell, E. Walker, G. H. Lavers, S. Porter, E. (Warrington) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Lee, F. (Hulme) Pritt, D. N. Warbey, W. N. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Proctor, W. T. Watkins, T. E. Leonard, W. Pursey, Cmdr. H. Watson, W. M. Leslie, J. R. Randall, H. E. Weitzman, D. Lever, FI. Off. N. H. Rankin, J. Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Levy, B. W. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Reeves, J. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Lewis, J. (Bolton) Reid, T. (Swindon) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Lindgren, G. S. Rhodes, H. Wigg, Colonel G. E. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Robens, A. Wilkes, Maj. L. Logan, D. G. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wilkins, W. A. Longden, F. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Lyne, A. W. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) McAllister, G Rogers, G. H. R. Williams, D. J. (Neath) McEntee, V. La T. Royle, C. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) McGhee, H. G. Sargood, R. Williams, W. R. (Heston) McGovern, J. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Williamson, T Mack, J. D. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Willis, E. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Shurmer, P. Wills, Mrs. E. A. McKinlay, A. S. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J. McLeavy, F. Simmons, C. J. Wilson, J. H. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Skeffington, A. M. Wise, Major F. J Mainwaring, W. H. Skinnard, F. W. Woodburn, A. Mallalieu, J. P. W. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Woods, G. S. Mann, Mrs. J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Yates, V. F. Manning, G. (Camberwell, N.) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Zilliacus, K. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Smith, T. (Normanton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mathers, G. Snow, Capt. J. W. Mr. Collindridge and Messer, F. Solley, L. J. Captain Bing
NOES. Aitken, Hon. M. Clarke, Col. R. S. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Amory, D. Heathcoat Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Gage, Lt.-Col. C. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Cooper-Key, E. M. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Astor, Hon. M. Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Gammans, Capt. L. D. Baldwin, A. E. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Gates, Maj. E. E. Barlow, Sir J. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Glyn, Sir R. Baxter, A. B. Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Gridley, Sir A. Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Cuthbert, W. N. Grimston, R. V. Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Darling, Sir W. Y. Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'dbr'ge) Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) De la Bère, R. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Bower, N. Digby, Maj. S. W. Haughton, S. G. Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Head, Brig. A. H. Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Hope, Lord J. Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Drayson, Capt. G. B. Howard, Hon. A. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Drewe, C. Hulbert, N. J. Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Eccles, D. M. Hurd, A Butcher, H. W. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Carson, E. Erroll, Col. F. J. Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Jarvis, Sir J. Channon, H. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Keeling, E. H. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B. Spence, Maj. H. R. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Nield, B. (Chester) Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Lambert, G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Osborne, C. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Studholme, H. G. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Pickthorn, K. Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne) Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) Pitman, I. J. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, S.) Linstead, H. N. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Teeling, William Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Raikes, H. V. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F. Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) Ramsay, Maj. S. Touche, G. C. Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland Walker-Smith, D. MacLeod, Capt. J. Ropner, Col. L. Ward, Hon. G. R. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Ross, Sir R. Wheatley, M. J. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Sanderson, Sir F. White, Sir D. (Fareham) Marsden, Capt. A. Savory, Prof. D. L. White, J. B. (Canterbury) Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin) Scott, Lord W. Williams, C. (Torquay) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Shephard, S. (Newark) Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. Mellor, Sir J. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Molson, A. H. E. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) York, C. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Smithers, Sir W. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) Snadden, W. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Spearman, A. C. M. Sir Arthur Young and Commander Agnew
Resolution to be reported this Day.
Adjournment
Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn"—[ Mr. Mathers. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Three o'Clock.