I have to acquaint the House that the House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which I have, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which is as follows:

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."

Although I have addressed the House on many occasions, I will ask the indulgence of hon. Members today in what to me is an onerous task. Today is a great event in my life. It is a great honour to me, to my constituency and particularly to the miners from whom I came. My constituency is made up of the overspill of the three boroughs of South Shields, Sunderland and Jarrow—the great mining area in County Durham. Its chief industries are the Mercantile Marine, shipbuilding and mining.

In relation to the Merchant Navy, I think I am speaking the feelings of the House when I say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to them for the services they rendered in the war. Many a time I have watched from the piers of my native town, and have seen the convoys lined up and going to Russia to supply the battlefields with the necessary equipment. Many I have seen that never came back, and in my native town the death roll of those who lost their lives at sea in the war is the heaviest in this country. When the story of the Mercantile Marine comes to be written, it will be an epic story. In shipbuilding, the skill of the craftsmen of the Tyneside and Wearside is known the world over. They worked hard during the war. Today they are working hard to replace the Mercantile Marine that we lost in the war, and I wish them Godspeed in their work which will contribute so much to the improvement of the economic position of this country.

With regard to mining, I would inform the House that I am a miner by profession and a Member of Parliament by accident. At the age of 14 I emerged from an elementary school and went into the coal pits. With the exception of the time that I served in His Majesty's Submarine Service, where I reached the exalted position on the lower deck of Able Seaman, I continued to work in the mines. I have lived among the mines in the last 28 years, during which period can be told the most tragic story of British mining. I myself have worked in the pits, six days a week hard going, and in 1928 have taken to my wife and two children the magnificent sum of £2 a week when the minimum wage was 7s. 1½d. a day. We were the despised and rejected of men in the 1920's and the 1930's. Every hand was against us and we were attacked from all quarters. I was the recipient of Poor Law relief during the 1921 and 1926 strikes. When this House discusses the manpower position of this basic industry, it must consider the question in the light of that background. Miners like myself swore by Heaven above that we would never allow our sons to face the distress and tragedy that we faced. Today the mining stock has practically gone from the mining villages. We are finding that the wastage in the mines is exceeding the intake.

I am now in the position of poacher turned gamekeeper. I have now got to say to the men that in the interests of this nation, now that the future of the industry is assured, it is essential that we should let our lads go back into the pits. Now that the nation's prosperity depends upon the mining community, it ought not to be the miners' sons alone who go into the mines; it ought to be the responsibility of all classes. If this industry is to be built up, it must be built up not by bringing in middle-aged men but by getting young men into the pits to take up mining as a career, so that they can start from the bottom rung of the ladder and become experienced miners at the age of 21. Therefore, I appeal to the nation through this House. This industry can solve many of our economic problems if we do the utmost to develop our coal resources, but there ought to be an inducement for all classes in the nation to go into the pits and so ensure our prosperity in the future.

I am pleased to note in the Gracious Speech that the Government intend to give us, as in every industry, the means to perform the task. I venture to make this prophecy. Given new machinery, spare parts to maintain the present machinery, and tubs and trams to ensure that the maximum amount of face coal is speedily obtainable, with the extra standard of work which the miners will give, the target for next year will be achieved and we shall have some coal for export. I say to my colleagues in the mines, "Your prosperity depends upon maximum production from the mines. If the nation should go down, so will the miners." I appeal to them from this House of Commons to give us all they can in the present economic crisis that this country has to face. I say to my Scottish friends who came out of the pits this week, "Go back to work." I agree they have a case. Already, however, their case is under discussion. Actions of this character will jeopardise the negotiating machinery that it has taken men like those we have on the back benches here, and who have come from the mines themselves, so many many years to build up. The miner has always been generous. In my county there stands a monument to his generosity in the Durham. Aged Miners' Homes that have been built for our aged people. The miner has been praised as a great fighter in war. Believe me, as one who has led the miners in strikes, they are great fighters against injustice. They are prepared at all times to risk their lives in explosions, or in falls; prepared to risk their very existence in the gases that arise from explosions. I do feel grieved when I read statements in the Press made by irresponsible people in all quarters of the House attacking the miner and telling him what he ought to do, while they have no knowledge of mining whatever.

In the Gracious Speech there is raised the question of the direction of labour. This is no new thing. Direction of labour has been in existence under the Unemployment Insurance Acts ever since I knew them. In the northern counties, and in Yorkshire and in Kent, there are thousands of my people who were hounded out of the pits and the factories in the years of depression. Because of the fact that they would have received the disallowance of unemployment benefit for refusing what is termed in the Act "suitable employment," direction by starvation was the lot of our people under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I was taught at school that every one was equal under British law. If it was equality that my people should have been directed to parts of the country where they would lose their local associations, I see no reason why people who do no useful work at all should not have the same direction as under these Acts, and be directed into suitable work in the hour of crisis in this country.

I welcome in the Gracious Speech the end of the Poor Law. This Act, which originated in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, has been revised and amended many times. All through the Acts of revision there was always the basic principle as far as we were concerned, that poverty was a crime. In the last century Charles Dickens indicted our Poor Law system in his great book, "Oliver Twist," in which he asked for more for the poor. We have the depiction of the people who administered public relief in the parsimonious Board and Bumble the Beadle. We have Noel's criticism of the burial of the poor who died in our institutions:

"Rattle his bones over the stones.

He's only a pauper whom nobody owns."

We have had books written by men like the late Lord Passfield on this subject. I remember that the definition of the word "destitution" has never been laid down by Statute. It was applied differently in the country.

I remember as a boy my grandmother receiving Poor Law relief. I remember how she cried after the visitor had accused her of wasting the relief she had received because she was enjoying the luxury of a herring—and herring in my days as a boy were 20 a penny. I remember also when people had to sell their furniture before they were given relief. This law went on until I myself became not only a recipient under it but became an administrator of it in my own local town. If ever there was an Act that people shunned to receive assistance from, it was the Poor Law Act. I am pleased today to be able to play some little part in the funeral of this particular Act of Parliament.

I leave this question by dealing with Poor Law relief in the workhouses. A better name has been found for them now—"institutions." They were built in the last century. They were built like barracks. In many parts of this country we find in them the mental ward on one side; on the other side the hospital; and in the middle we find our own veterans of industry who have had to go into the institutions because they have fallen on evil days. I have seen a couple who had been married 40 years who went into the workhouse, and the wife was sent one way and the man the other—parted at the workhouse gates in the middle of their happy married life. I hope that with the new national assistance Act we shall obliterate this sort of thing from the fair face of England and that those places will be re-adapted, so that if our people fall on evil days and go into the institutions, they will continue to the end of their days to lead their normal married lives.

I come to my last point. I am pleased that in the Gracious Speech it is predicted at long last that areas like mine are to receive fairness of treatment from the Treasury—that is, in the redistribution of the block grant system. The numbers of sick and aged people are always heavier in the big industrial areas. That fact arises from the industrial work. In the inter-war years not only have we had to carry those, but we have had to carry unemployed people as well, and it has meant in the North, where I live and where my constituency is, that we have had to meet terrifically high rates when wealthier boroughs far away from the industrial areas were enjoying a lower rate. The redistribution of the block grant will mean great benefit to the local authorities, enabling them to give to the working class people the amenities that they are entitled to have—as the richer boroughs can. The rates in my area are terrifically high. In my home town they are about 22s. in the £; in Gateshead they are somewhere about 25s. in the £; in Jarrow, of world wide fame, the rates are 20s. 10d. in the £; in Sunderland, 20s. in the £. With the new education estimates to go against them, it would mean, were there no revision of the block grant, that it would be a sheer impossibility for local authorities to carry on. I believe that this message to the local authorities—of the revision of the block grant—will be regarded as a half-way road to victory, because we have all believed that equalisation of the rates was the thing to be aimed at.

I want to conclude. The reference in the Gracious Speech to the Poor Law and to the revision of the block grant are to me and to my constituents like bright metal on a dark background. They are all the brighter because of the sombreness of their surroundings. I have great pleasure in moving the Motion.

I beg to second the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) in such an admirable and forthright manner.

It is with no little trepidation that I do so, since, being a Scottish Member, participating usually in Scottish Debates, I have never before had to address such a full House as I am doing now. I am deeply aware of the very great honour conferred not only on me, but particularly on those miners in the pit in which my father worked who nominated me as candidate for the North Lanark Division, and, indeed, on all the people of my constituency—the miners, the industrial workers, the office workers, those people in professions, who worked with a will not only to return a Labour Member to this House to represent them, but who, during the past two years—two years that have not been at all easy for this Government or for this country—have given of their very best to help us to solve our postwar problems. From my contacts with them during the Recess I am absolutely convinced that they are going to continue to give of their best to Britain in order to make her the sort of Britain that we want her to be.

My hon. Friend has dealt with many matters of home policy. I want for a short time to deal with foreign affairs. Today, we often despair at the seeming disunity that there is in the world two years after the most devastating war. The signing of peace treaties takes longer than we should wish. The ideologies and philosophies of the great nations seem to clash and hinder that progress towards a lasting peace, for which I am certain every citizen of every nation longs and prays.

I am glad to see, in the Gracious Speech, the determination of this Government to continue to give full support to the United Nations organisation. I do not wish to deal with the wider field of foreign affairs, but there are two aspects on which I would like to touch for a short time. They are aspects which are very often overlooked when we are despairing generally at what seems to be the disunity of the world. They are two aspects which are of vital importance if we are to get that lasting peace we all desire. I am referring to U.N.E.S.C.O. and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Surely, on the question of food and the question of education nations can find some common basis on which they can discuss and agree. At the meetings of U.N.E.S.C.O. we have not only the political representatives of the various countries, but we have men and women whose sole aim is to give the benefits of research in science and in education to all the peoples of the world. They have much to give in these two fields, and much to give in bringing about real peace in the world. We, in Scotland, have given one of our most outstanding men to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I refer to Sir John Boyd Orr. The whole nation is proud of him and of his work. Perhaps I may take a little reflected glory, because he was the only candidate in a university election for whom I voted who did not turn out to be a mere "also-ran" when the results came out.

Both in U.N.E.S.C.O. and in the Food and Agriculture Organisation, this Government of ours have given the greatest support since their inception. We must see to it that the aim of Sir John Boyd Orr, and, indeed, the aim of the whole Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is to give an adequate diet to every single person in this world, no matter of What race, creed or colour, is an aim we must continue to support. Surely, it is a noble aim when we consider not only the thousands of people in our own country who for many years have not had an adequate diet, but those millions of people scattered all over the world who have always been living on the very verge of starvation. I would say to the Government—and I am certain I do not say it in vain—that we have to see to it that the fears which Sir John Boyd Orr has been expressing, the fears that this Organisation will merely be a collector of statistics and data, do not turn out to be realities Britain can play a very great part in seeing that these fears are banished. In giving support to these two organisations—and what Britain can contribute in regard to industrial questions is second to none—we shall be going a very long way towards bringing about the peace which we all want.

I welcome very much indeed the mention in the Gracious Speech of the acceleration of demobilisation of men and women in the Forces. This will not only be of benefit to these men and women who will be able to enjoy civilian life so much more quickly than they expected, but it will be of great benefit to those industries which are so short of manpower; it will also be a very great saving in our overseas expenditure. I am pleased also with the reference to the reorganisation of our Forces on a peacetime footing. I feel that in that reference our Government are fully conscious of the need to make all three of our Forces more democratic than they are today. I remember a question which was put in the higher school leaving certificate examination just before I became a Member of Parliament. The students were asked to say what figure of speech was contained in the following sentence: "Every private may become a Napoleon." Some of my boys polished off that question very quickly in the one word, "hyperbole." But alas, although I was willing to accept it and give them full marks, the powers that be were not. They were aggrieved, and, I felt, rightly so. Unless there is equality of opportunity in promotion for the men who enter the Forces, and great improvements, which I cannot dilate upon at this time, we shall never get into the Forces voluntarily the men whom we need to safeguard our country.

The determination to have the closest joint co-operation in industry, I am certain, will be welcomed by all the workers throughout the country. We have always felt that if we are to get the increase in production necessary for the well being of this country, we must have greater joint consultation between the workers and managements. Our men have not only hands, but brains which they can use, and for that reason alone I welcome joint production. In the economic state of our country today, and indeed of the whole world, it would be quite unforgivable to lose any particle of talent that there is in our country. I welcome it for another reason. The majority of our workers are spending eight hours a day doing a purely mechanical routine job. What could be more frustrating than that? Human beings were never meant to be mere robots, and if our men have the knowledge that they are not just cogs in the machine, but citizens who are to be allowed to play a responsible part in our drive for greater output, we shall get a zest and a return from our workers which we could not otherwise hope to obtain.

I read with very great pleasure the part in the Gracious Speech which deals with deprived children. I am delighted that steps are to be taken during this Session to ensure that many of these children are to have much greater care, attention and supervision than they have ever had before. I would make the plea that we should see to it that as few as possible of these children are cared for in institutions. No matter how well organised or how well supervised, we ought to see to it that our children do not go into institutions. Our aim should be to find a real home for those children, a home, where they will have the love, care, and individual attention which is the birthright of every child, a home where they will be able to put down their roots, to which they can return when they do go out into the world to work, a home in which there is someone who cares about them, who is interested in their successes, difficulties, and failures. It will not be easy to achieve that aim, but when was anything worth while ever achieved without great work?

Scottish farmers and farm workers will welcome the proposed legislation in the Gracious Speech to help with the development of agriculture in our country. We have often felt, in spite of the jokes that are made about the climate of Scotland, that our country could play a much bigger part in the production of food which an industrial nation must have. The new legislation will give an incentive, both to the farmers and to the workers, to produce that necessary food, coupled with the drive for better housing for agricultural workers, and I can envisage many of those parts of Scotland that lost their populations in less prosperous days becoming really prosperous centres, with people producing the food and living a happy life.

The last point I want to make is one which, I feel, applies to almost every constituency. I expect that most Members of this House addressed meetings of workers during the Recess. We explained to them just what were the needs of the nation; we asked them to give of their best, to exert every ounce of energy that they possessed to help Britain to get over her difficulties, and not only Britain but the whole world as well. We were not at all ashamed to place before them the full facts of the situation, not at all ashamed to condemn unofficial strikes, or to ask them to give of their very best. Now I want to say something which some Members may feel is verging on the controversial. I have been told that one must not be controversial on this occasion, but perhaps I shall be forgiven. It was heartening to me to find that our people had the greatest faith in this Government. I would like to emphasise that. It was not only my experience, but the experience of other Members on this side of the House who spent most of the Recess explaining the real facts of the situation.

But it was not only heartening; it was a little terrifying. We are asking much of our people today, and I feel that we have the right to ask for it. For the first time many of our people have a feeling of security. We have the right to ask much from them, but they ask much from us in return. When I addressed meetings of miners and their wives in crowded miners welfare halls, or industrial workers in the part of Glasgow I represent, I talked to people who never before had any security in their lives, but who are willing to put up with shortages and give of their best until our balance of trade is redressed. One cannot possibly address such people without feeling the great sense of responsibility that their very faith in us imposes on us. We as a Government must not fail these people and I am convinced, from the working of this Government in the past two years, and from what is outlined in the Gracious Speech, that we as a Government shall not fail our people.

Ever since I have been a Member of this House, I have listened to the Member to whose lot it has fallen to make the speech I have to make this afternoon, the Member who has tried to find something new and original to say about the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I have heard great orators not entirely contrive to do that, and I, for my part, shall attempt nothing of the kind. I would merely say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) who moved the Address, and the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), who seconded it, that we offer them, as I am sure the House as a whole does, our sincere congratulations on the manner in which they carried out their task. If I may say so to the Mover, his speech was obviously actuated by a very deep sincerity. One felt that he was speaking of things near his heart, and as one who was born and bred in his county, may I say that it was good to hear a Durham voice speak so well?

As for the Seconder, I must confess that I have not had the good fortune to hear the hon. Lady before. I suppose it is because I have not been sufficiently assiduous in my attendance of Debates on Scottish affairs. The final observations which the hon. Lady made in the earlier stages of her speech, about foreign affairs, shows that she has made a close study of the subject, and I hope she will give us the opportunity—especially those of us who come from south of the Border—of hearing what she has to say on this subject in future. The hon. Lady said that she felt some trepidation, but I can assure her that she certainly never showed it.

As the hon. Lady referred to foreign affairs, perhaps the House will permit me to make one or two observations about them in the opening part of my speech. The international scene which we are surveying this afternoon is indeed a sombre one. It has darkened almost everywhere since we were met together last August. In particular, the antagonism between the Soviet Union and Russian-imposed and controlled Communist Governments in Eastern Europe, on the one hand, and the Western democracies and the United States of America, on the other, has unhappily sharpened. The Cominform has been brought into being. In France and Italy the activities of the Communists continue, and they are intensified, particularly against the Socialist parties in those countries. In Bulgaria, since we last met, M. Petkov has been judicially murdered. In these conditions, it is not surprising that U.N.O. can contribute very little—anxious as I am, like the hon. Lady, that it should contribute more—except to provide platforms for political exchanges of the utmost violence, exchanges in which M. Vishinsky has been distinguished by the unbridled licence of his language, and the Minister of State by the courage and candour of his. In China vast territories continue to bleed from a civil strife that retards or wrecks recovery. In India whole populations are on the move. They are to be numbered in hundreds of thousands, perhaps in millions. Scenes are being enacted of which no one has seen the like for 200 years at least, perhaps ever.

What is to be done about this scene of international tension and suffering which covers almost the whole world? There is only one course open to us, and I believe that the Minister of State has shown the way. We must hold fast to our own faith in true democracy and in a free way of life, and we must fulfil our obligations under the international instruments to which we have put our name. There is nothing to be gained by seeking to appease others by compromising on essentials. We shall only go all the faster down the slope that way. It really is impossible to accept the protestations of friendship which Marshal Stalin, I understand, recently addressed to some hon. Members of this House, when the Moscow radio can continue to blare, without ceasing day and night, torrents of vilification and abuse of Governments and peoples who were so recently the allies of the Soviet Union on a common battlefield.

In the international sphere, the most important single event since we adjourned is the Marshall initiative, or rather the response of the 16 nations in the plan which His Majesty's Government helped to elaborate. In my judgment, this event far transcends in importance the Communist offensive against the plan. The work of the 16 nations is constructive. It is aimed at rebuilding a shattered Europe, and rebuilding it with American help. It is devoutly to be hoped that rapid progress can now be made with this plan, for it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that upon this the economic survival of Western Europe depends. I am glad to see that our American friends are approaching the problem in that spirit, and a great debt is due to the generous statesmanship which their leaders are showing at this critical period. On the other hand, the Communist offensive is destructive. It seeks to prevent economic co-operation between the nations. It is one more example of that extreme economic nationalism which we have now learned to expect from the Soviet Government. I say these things with regret, but, with the greater freedom which I have as a Member of the Opposition, I think they should be said.

I feel that I must make some comment on the performance of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) and his colleagues, all of them, as I understand, nominal supporters of the Government, in giving in Warsaw a Press conference which was apparently devoted to vilifying the plan which His Majesty's Government support. The hon. Member for Gateshead, I noticed, also took the opportunity to endorse in Belgrade the Comin-form declaration, which attacks by name both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. There has been in the past a tradition among hon. Members of this House that when we are abroad, although we may speak freely on international affairs generally, we, seek to avoid criticising our own Government. That seems to me to be, generally speaking, a good rule. But, however that may be, it seems to me utterly indefensible that hon. Members should use foreign Press agencies, not only to attack the leaders and the Government of whom they are nominally supporters, but also to make violent charges against a friendly nation—the United States of America.

So far as Communist parties in all lands are concerned, we know what to expect. Both Thorez in France and Togliatti in Italy have used precisely the same methods, not only to hamper, but to wreck the 16 nations' plan. One thing we can say for these men is that they do call themselves Communists. I confess that I understand them rather better than men who seem to be Communists in everything except name.

Before I leave the subject of foreign affairs, I want to make some observations on two matters, as I see that the Foreign Secretary is here. One is about Germany. On the problem of Germany, in respect of which the Government have taken a new decision, and which, no doubt, hon. Members will want to discuss in the course of the Debate, I would like to say this as a preliminary. The Potsdam Agreement, in my judgment, can no longer be regarded by us as having any validity in so far as it concerns the economic treatment of Germany. I say that because the basis of the Potsdam Agreement was, as is known on both sides of the House by those who had anything to do with it, that Germany should have been treated as an economic whole. Personally, I have always thought, and still think, that had that been possible it would have been the better way. It would have been, among other things, the basis of the conviction that the Allies must continue to work together. That has not been possible. It must be frankly said that the fact that it has not been possible is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. This is the position now, as I see it. As the result of the Soviet Government's action, we have to settle these matters now, so far as our zones in the West are concerned, on the basis of what is the best for the future peace of Europe. I have no doubt that what is best is that Germany should make the fullest possible contribution to her own economic recovery, but that she should not be put into a position again to re-arm and thereby to endanger the peace of Europe. About that I think there is no disagreement.

How is that to be brought about? The Government have produced a plan. I do not minimise the difficulties of getting international agreement on such a subject; and I hope that we shall have some more information about the plan in the course of the Debate, and an opportunity perhaps to discuss it. I certainly would not recommend that all German industry should be allowed to be free and uncontrolled, but we have also to understand that there has been great delay in carrying out these plans of dismantling and demolition. By the terms of the Potsdam Agreement, they should have been finished at the end of two years. That, again, is not the fault of His Majesty's Government. All the same, it remains true that any demolition now carried out is bound to seem harsher to the German people. It is, therefore, surely important to try to ensure that none is carried out where a factory is already engaged on peaceful work of economic reconstruction. There was the "Holmag" story published in the Press. I have no idea how far the facts are justified. If there are other cases like that, it would be most disquieting. I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State will in the course of this Debate give us some more information on this subject.

I have one other observation to make before I leave the foreign field. I cannot do that without paying tribute to the work that has been done by our retiring Ambassador in Paris. Mr. Duff Cooper was appointed to that post to represent us with the French nation at a most exacting time. He has done his work in a manner which has earned him the lasting respect and friendship of Frenchmen in all walks of life, and should also earn him the sincere gratitude of this House. I should also like to extend our own good wishes to his successor.

Now I turn from foreign affairs, where there is little controversy, to the domestic scene, where controversy will be found to be materially more lively. First of all, I observe that since we were last assembled in this House there have been certain modifications in the personnel of the Front Bench opposite. It would be indelicate of me to dwell on those changes in any detail, but I am bound to say that, viewed from this side of the House, the reasons for the dismissal of some Ministers and the retention of others are very hard indeed to understand. I say nothing about transfers; they are completely inexplicable. I would content myself with the quotation of one general comment which came from the no doubt disinterested outlook of the Government back benches. They are always disinterested in discussing new appointments of Ministers. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) observed that the Prime Minister has a marked capacity for putting square pegs in round holes.

Whatever the opinions about individual changes, much the most important modification, of course, is the extension of the powers given to the Minister for Economic Affairs. On the whole, we would be inclined to think that this modification should be to the national advantage, but the question immediately arises, how much power has that Minister really got? About this only the Prime Minister can inform us. For instance, what are the new Minister's relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I observe that the Minister for Economic Affairs informed us that the Chancellor goes into bat before him. That is rather a surprising statement. One would have expected them to open the innings together. I should like to know whether this arrangement has been made by the captain, or whether it is just a result of a scramble for the crease. In any event, from the national point of view, it is essential that finance should serve the economic effort and not pursue an independent course. I should have thought that what I am advocating would be very welcome to hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Transcending all other domestic affairs is the gravity of our economic position, and it is essential that we should have, at the earliest moment, a full statement from the Government of the developments during the Recess. What, in particular, is our position now about our gold reserves and the gap in our balance of payments? We have all seen the published figures, and on the face of it, they are disturbing enough. We appear to be losing gold at very much the same rate as we were losing dollars in August. I admit that the published figures do not necessarily give the full picture, but that full picture we must have, for surely everyone will admit—I know that the Chancellor will admit it—that it is a very grave event that we should be expending the gold reserves of the sterling area at this rate. When do the Government expect that the measures they have taken to reduce imports and expand exports are going to have some effect on this still yawning gap? Here I put to the Prime Minister a question which for some time has been troubling me. What is the relation between Britain's part in this plan of the 16 nations and our own effort, as described by the Minister of Economic Affairs, to balance our own payments next year? According to the plan of the 16 nations, we visualise a large, continuing deficit, and that appears to contradict the plan of the Minister for Economic Affairs. I have no doubt that these projects can be reconciled, but we should like to know how in the Government's mind that reconciliation is going to be brought about.

What is essential is that the people of this country should see the picture clearly and as a whole, for as far ahead as possible. We cannot continually ask the people of this country to consume nothing and to export everything, nor can we expect other countries to be prepared indefinitely to take what we send them while we refuse to accept what they wish to send us. That brings me to the question of marketing, the most vexing question of all, because, after all, we are not the only country seeking to increase its exports and restrict its imports. Here again, we must have an exposition of how the Government view the prospects and what action they are taking. Have the Government any plans for extending the use of sterling in the non-dollar areas as a medium for financing international trade, and what is the position about this capital expenditure programme?

The Prime Minister will probably remember that for more than a year some of us have been urging upon the Government the need to produce such a programme, and for many months past the Government have been telling us that they were engaged upon such a programme. Nothing has emerged, and meanwhile the present uncertainty is both confusing and wasteful. Can the Prime Minister tell us when can we expect a programme, and in particular when can we expect to know what decisions have been taken in respect of the housing programme? Everybody admits the difficulties of this capital expenditure programmes, but I must say that the position is becoming infinitely more difficult because of the long delay before the Government announce their proposals. Even so it would be wrong to slash this programme purely on a financial basis. Reductions have to take account of materials as well as of finance.

The Gracious Speech referred to re-imposed labour controls, and the Mover of the Address had something to say about this, drawn from the years of unemployment and his experiences then. He would not deny that there is in all quarters of this House an extreme distaste for any measure for the direction of labour in peace time. It would seem to us that the words in the Gracious Speech go rather beyond anything the Government have hitherto proposed. We ask, therefore, that the Prime Minister should give us an early explanation of what the Government intend, for every step, however small, which abrogates the freedom of choice of the individual is one against which this House ought to react instinctively and one against which the British people will always react instinctively. I am glad to know from the Gracious Speech that there are to be supplementary financial proposals this autumn, but I am also sorry to note that nowhere in the Gracious Speech is there any indication of any need for reduced Government expenditure. Yet those figures continue to stand at staggering heights.

The difficulties of the present situation have resulted in a number of drastic cuts which are pressing severely on all sections of the people. Of course, it is easy to suppose—if anyone does suppose—that the abolition of the basic petrol ration affects the wealthier section of the community. That is not so, and particularly in the country districts, as those of us who have been to our constituencies will know, it is a matter of very real significance to the life of the community. Bus routes are already overcrowded, and the abolition of the basic ration will permanently increase the congestion, lengthen the queues, and mean a definite waste of time and effort. The Government will no doubt have observed that a disturbing feature of this situation is the number of ex-Service men who have invested their savings and gratuities in petrol pump stations, garages and enterprises of that kind. We all know from our own constituencies that that is so. This Government decision will be a staggering blow to those men. I must say that the Government's explanations on this subject have been insufficiently convincing so far. The matter will have to be probed further. So I ask the Prime Minister if he can tell us now what the net saving is to be from the step which the Government are now taking, in contrast, for instance, with what the net saving would have been if they had only halved the basic ration.

Another disturbing feature in this matter of petrol is the number of different Government statements which have followed each other in rapid succession. I would recall to the Prime Minister that on 30th June we were told that petrol supplies to the Services and to commercial users would be cut. A few weeks afterwards, on 6th August, we were told that there would be a cut of one-third in basic petrol. At the end of August we were informed that the basic ration would be abolished. A week after that, the Prime Minister told us that there would be some modification of the supplementary petrol to be given. All those changes of policy give the impression of hesitation and of muddle in the mind of the Government. They also increase the exasperation and the harassing effect upon the general public. The motorist cannot altogether be blamed if he feels that he has been singled out for exceptionally harsh treatment. Nobody can deny that the abolition of the basic petrol ration hits the motorist harder than the corresponding reductions have hit either the cinema-goer or the cigarette smoker.

I pass to another subject. There are many reports in the Press of the course of the negotiations between ourselves and the United States on the subject of tariffs and preferences. We hope very much that the Prime Minister will be able to enlighten us on these matters, for they are of deep and lasting concern to us all. I would remind the Prime Minister of what he said last year to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he reaffirmed an earlier speech. He said—I will quote two sentences:

"There is no commitment on any country in advance of negotiations to reduce or to eliminate any particular margin of preference."

Again:

"There is thus no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences. There must be adequate compensation for all parties affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1946; Vol. 416, c. 2668.]

I would like to be assured that this is still the position. I would also like the Prime Minister to give us any information he can about the course of those discussions. This is an issue which deeply stirs public opinion in this country and, of course, elsewhere in the British Commonwealth and Empire. I trust, therefore, that before we are irrevocably committed the Prime Minister will take the House fully into his confidence. I am well aware of the normal constitutional practice which may be quoted, but this is an issue of transcending importance. Therefore, the claim I make is one that we consider should be met.

I turn for a moment to the question of the cuts in our Armed Forces, and particularly in the Royal Navy. I would remind the Prime Minister of the announcements in Sunday's and yesterday's newspapers that from Friday the strength of the Home Fleet will be reduced to one cruiser and four destroyers. That news was received, I believe, by the whole country with a profound shock. How did it come about that news as grave as this should leak out in this manner and be disclosed by the Press before any official announcement was made? Only a week ago, the Admiralty put out a Press statement which we all noted, explaining some of the difficulties in manning which would be involved in the accelerated rundown of the Forces. No indication was given of the devastating results upon the effective strength of the Navy which those difficulties would entail.

The decision must have been taken by then. Why was not the country told the whole story together? What is the result? The British Fleet is to be reduced this week to one cruiser and four destroyers in the home waters. In other words, we shall have a Fleet in these seas smaller than the Peruvian Navy. What is—I ask the Government—the reason for this decision? Are we really to be told that this is to be done solely in order that 22,000 more men may be released by next March than had been originally allowed for? I am not ignorant, nor is my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, of the many difficulties involved in the release of these thousands of men from the Royal Navy. We realise full well that a great turnover like that involves training and retraining a large number of men, and that much of that work has to be done ashore. Even allowing for all that, and for the emphasis upon naval aviation, can we be really satisfied that our manpower is being properly used?

Under Vote A next March we shall still have about 140,000 men. Do the Government really maintain that these men will be used to the best advantage, when a cut like this is being made in the Home Fleet and comparable cuts—although we have not been told—are to be made in our Fleets in all other parts of the world? The whole position must cause the gravest concern. There is one assurance which I hope the Prime Minister can give us now. If we are to cut our Services in order to suit our manpower now, we must have an assurance that such reductions are temporary, even transitional, and that research, development and training are continuing so that a strong, modern Fleet may be once again at sea. We must press for that assurance, and for some report of progress from the Prime Minister—I see that the Minister of Defence smiles, but we are concerned.

indicated dissent.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the last to forget that this nation cannot afford once again to undergo the race against time which we had during the first year of the last war. The next race will be very much shorter.

What war has the right hon. Gentleman in mind?

I would remind the hon. Member of what the First Lord, who is a Member of the Government, said the other day on this very subject, because it seems to answer the hon. Gentleman's question very well. He said:

"The Royal Navy does not exist merely to engage in war. Indeed, the cause of freedom throughout the world to a large extent has been promoted and maintained by the presence of ships of the Royal Navy in every sea."

I believe that statement of the First Lord to be justified.

Now I turn to the distribution of Parliamentary seats. I note that in addition to that subject the Gracious Speech also refers to "Measures to reform franchise procedure." The Prime Minister will remember—the Lord President is here and he will also know—that in recent years Measures of this character have been the outcome of conferences presided over by you, Mr. Speaker. That has been the practice in recent years, and I should have hoped that that practice could have been continued, and that whatever the temptation—and I quite understand the temptation, because of the need for it—we should not approach these matters purely from the point of view of party advantage.

Now I come to the most controversial portion of what I have to say. We note, of course, a phrase in the Gracious Speech that refers to the amendment of the Parliament Act of 1911, and we await the Prime Minister's explanation on this subject. This, however, I must say at once. On the face of it there would seem to be neither justification for such an amendment nor an electoral mandate for it. The matter was dealt with, as hon. Members opposite will no doubt recall, in "Let Us Face The Future" in these words:

"And in stating it, we give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people's will by the House of Lords."

[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] All right. Then is it the Government's suggestion that there has been such obstruction? If so, that obstruction must have developed since 9th September last, which was the last occasion on which their Lordships sat, when a quite un-exampled tribute was paid not only on his behalf, but on behalf of the Government, by the Government spokesman in another place. I am, unfortunately, precluded by our rules from quoting the actual words used, but I commend them to the study of hon. Members on that side of the House. I can only say that the First Lord of the Admiralty made it plain that, in the Government's judgment, the Opposition majority had been used in a moderate and statesmanlike way—[Interruption]—that is something like what he said—and in a manner which had given the Government side of the House no real or reasonable complaint. That was the gist of the tribute. If that is so, what really is the obstruction which alone would justify the Government in taking the step which they now propose to take, in accordance with the terms of their document.

May I give them just one other quotation, because I am impressed by it and by the eloquence of some of the noble Lords who are Ministers in another place. This I can quote because it was said in the country. It is by Lord Ammon, also a Member of His Majesty's present Government. He said:

"I work hard in the House of Lords; as you know, for we do not take things so easily there. We work long hours and we do not get a thousand a year for it. I do not believe any critic of the House of Lords can look around the world and find any second Chamber that he likes better than ours. We are a remarkable reservoir of learning, and we have often saved the House of Commons from falling into bad blunders."

What do the Government propose to do with this "powerful reservoir of learning"? I ask the Prime Minister to explain. I also ask him to tell us what has happened since the last sitting of that noble Chamber which has caused the Government entirely to throw over the views of their own spokesman in another place.

I conclude as the Gracious Speech begins. Of all our problems today, the most important by far are our immediate urgent economic necessities. It is on these that the Government ought to concentrate. It is on these that they ought to have been concentrating for the last two years. I am sorry that, from the Gracious Speech, it seems that they have not yet learnt that lesson. In this Speech there are political items which, however important we may think them and however much we may be ready to debate them, can contribute nothing to the immediate solution of these problems. But it is on the handling of these major economic problems that the Government are going to be judged. They are not handling these problems by nationalising the gas industry or amending the Parliament Act. What comfort is that to those who are at present suffering from acute shortages of food, houses and fuel? What contribution do these things make to stop the drain on our gold reserves or to close the gap in our balance of payments? The pursuit of such purely partisan policies will not restore the nation's prosperity, nor bring happiness to our people.

I desire to associate myself with the congratulations which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), acting as Leader of the Opposition for the time being, has offered to the Mover and Seconder of the Address. I have heard a great many of these speeches, and I have had to take the part the right hon. Gentleman has taken today on many occasions, and I know the difficulty of finding fresh words. I thought that the Mover, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) dealt with one of the major factors of our problems, the coal situation, from the depths of personal experience, and I think he gave the kind of background which is required when we are dealing with these economic problems, particularly when we are considering the question of the morale of the people who work in the pits. I thought we had a delightful, charming and sincere speech from the hon. Lady who seconded and who particularly dealt with the social reform side of our proposals.

Before I deal with the matter of the Gracious Speech itself and the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as usual there are several matters of Business that fall to be dealt with. The announcement of the engagment of Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth has been greeted with great satisfaction throughout the whole country—and I believe that the House would like the opportunity of recording its feelings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I propose tomorrow at the beginning of Business to move an Address of Congratulation to His Majesty the King, Her Majesty the Queen and Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth on Her Royal Highness's engagement.

The Debate on the Address will occupy the remainder of this week, and under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, we shall endeavour to meet the wishes of the House in regard to the conduct of the general Debate and the discussion of specific subjects. We shall of course allow reasonable time for the Debate, and the proposed arrangements will be announced in the usual way. I hope, however, that the Debate might be concluded next week. I regret to say that it will be necessary for the Government to ask again for the whole time of the House for Government Business and to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only and to stop the ballot for Private Members' Bills and Motions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The necessary Motion will appear on the Paper and will be moved tomorrow. I have heard this Motion very many times by very many Governments—[An HON. MEMBER: "Only during war,"]—and it always evokes the same response. I had hoped that it would be possible this year to restore Private Members' time, at least up to Christmas, but the need for an Autumn Budget and of passing before Christmas, in addition to certain departmental Bills, the Burma Independence Bill and the Ceylon Constitution Bill has made this impossible.

The House will see from the Gracious Speech that our legislative programme, though not as extensive as that of last Session, is bound to take up a good deal of time. We shall, of course, as was done last Session, endeavour to provide opportunities for Debate on matters of general interest, and we propose in the interest of Private Members to safeguard the half-hour Adjournment—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are grateful for that."]—at the end of every sitting, not only after exempted Business or when the Rule is suspended, but after a Division or Divisions which may occur at the interruption of Business. It will be necessary to renew the Motion relating to the hours of sitting before the end of today's Business and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to adjourn the Debate on the Address at a reasonable hour in order that there may be time to consider this Motion before the rising of the House. We are proposing to continue the hours of sitting which were in operation during the last Session. We shall also ask the House at a later stage to renew the arrangements relating to the constitution of Standing Committees and other matters.

I would now like to turn to the legislative programme. We are bringing before the House, as will be seen, a balanced programme of social reform and local government matters relating to our democratic system of Government—all find their place—and there are important Bills dealing with constitutional matters in other parts of the British Commonwealth. The legislative programme shows the completion of a system of social security by the abolition of the remnants of the Poor Law. A great series of reforms carried out over many years will help, this Session, finally to end the old Poor Law and create this new social security system. In this work Governments of various political colours have played their part since the days of the Lloyd George Act, and many other laws passed during Conservative Governments, Liberal Governments and Labour Governments. I should like to take this occasion to pay my tribute to the late Lord Passfield. He played his part in Parliament for some years, but his greatest work was done in the field of social reorganisation. I remember very well 40 years ago the work on the minority report of the Poor Law. I remember how he and I took some small part, how it was publicised throughout the country, and how it had the support of Members of all parties. I wish that Lord Passfield had lived long enough to see the last vestige of the old Poor Law swept away, but he saw sufficient to realise that that work of his had not been in vain. There is another Measure in which he, as the greatest authority on local government, would have been interested, and that is the Bill which the Minister of Health will introduce dealing with the reform of the block grant system and the machinery of valuation.

There are further important matters of legislation to which I would refer. The reform of criminal justice is long overdue. I was one of those who regretted that Sir Samuel Hoare was unable to pass into law the Measure which he introduced, but the Debates on that Bill covered a good deal of ground and revealed a large measure of agreement; and though, no doubt, there will be some controversy, I believe the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will introduce will gain a very large measure of support from all sides of the House. I believe the same will apply to the Bill for the public care of children.

I said that we were completing great Measures of social reform. We are also intending to complete the process of bringing under public ownership the fuel and power industries by the nationalisation of the gas industry. The House is, of course, aware that this industry is very largely already in public hands and publicly controlled, and in view of the report of the Heyworth Committee, I can really see no reason—apart from what we sometimes call ideological prejudices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why not? It is really a logical development. I notice there has been a good deal of talk with regard to another great industry, the iron and steel industry. There are no proposals in this Gracious Speech dealing with that industry. It was put down among other matters to be dealt with in the programme set out in "Let us Face the Future," to which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred just now. I believe there is an overwhelming case in the national interest and I would like to say, in order to avoid any doubt there might be, that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in the present Parliament to nationalise the relevant portions of the iron and steel industry.

The right hon. Gentleman raised some points with regard to the Redistribution of Seats Bill. That is brought forward from the Speaker's Conference, and I am sure he will await the Bill before he passes any comments on the details of it.

The other Bill to which he referred was the Parliament Bill. I think a great deal of time has passed since the Parliament Act of 1911 and it is quite well worth while looking again at that Act. It would be improper for me to state the exact proposals we intend to bring forward, but the intention is to reduce from two years to one year the period of delay which the other place can now impose. I freely admit, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that up to the present the leadership in the other House has been both wise and statesmanlike. Legislation has been passed which undoubtedly has been distasteful to the majority of that House, but I am bound to have it in mind that under the Parliament Act the first three years of a Parliament's life operate so that Bills can be put through if rejected under the Parliament Act, but after the Government's life has run for a certain time, then that axe begins to hang over the head of any Government. I think it is wise to deal with this matter in time, and before any serious matter has arisen, in order to lessen the danger which might arise should leadership in the other place pass into less responsible hands. We must remember that there is always that great number of noble Lords who do not attend, but they might attend. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Why do it now? You have no quarrel." But it is much better to avoid a quarrel. Why wait to get a fire extinguisher until a fire has actually broken out? It is better to provide yourself with a fire extinguisher at once.

Economise in fuel.

More fuel is consumed if you burn down the whole house.

I will quote from an admirable speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on the First Reading of the Parliament Act of 1911–

The Parliament Bill.

He was speaking on the Bill at the time:

"We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the nation. We believe that the people should choose their representatives, that they should come to a decision between men, party and policy, judging their character and judging the circum stances of the hour; that they should choose their representatives and then trust them and give them a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unreasonably prolonged; then these representatives should be summoned before their constituents, who should judge them in relation to all the circumstances proper to be considered, and in relation as well to the general effects of their policy, and should either confirm them in their places as representatives or choose other men to take their place.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1911; Vol. 21, c. 2035.]

These principles are, of course, applicable today. The right hon. Gentleman says that the peoples' representatives should be given a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unduly prolonged, and the Parliament Act defined five years as that reasonable period. But I could never see why a Conservavtive Government should be given five years, and a Liberal, or Labour, Government only three years. The Parliament Act of 1911 was a very moderate measure. Here again, I would quote the right hon. Gentleman, this time from the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill:

"And when we remember that these powers, so far as this Bill is concerned, will remain and be exercised by hereditary Lords who are responsible to no constituency, will be exercised by them, although they nearly all belong to the Conservative Party, will remain to be exercised by them after all the democratic victories of the last six years, I confess so far from feeling myself as participating in a revolution, I stand here not merely astonished at our moderation, but upon occasion I am almost aghast."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1771.]

After the victories we had, this is a very moderate curbing of the powers of another place. There was also a note of warning:

"The powers retained by the House of Lords under the Parliament Bill will not merely be effectual, but, as I think has been borne in upon us every day we have discussed this matter, they will be formidable and even menacing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1911; Vol. 25, c. 1770.]

It so happened that for 34 years prior to the advent of this Government, except for two brief periods of minority Labour Governments, the Conservative Party have had effective power in both Houses; therefore, the issue never arose. But this is a wise precautionary measure—

A deliberate act of social aggression.

The right hon. Gentleman must be in a reminiscent mood He is thinking of the things said to him when he stood at this Box in 1911. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington pointed out that in fact the noble Lords in another place exercise their power with great wisdom and moderation. If, as I hope, the Members of another place are not inclined ever again to exercise those menacing powers in order to render nugatory the decisions of the elected Chamber, then our proposals will do them no harm, but we should be taking away a weapon they have no intention of using. If, on the other hand, they still have the intention to re-assert those powers, which of late have fallen into desuetude, then this Bill will be both effective and timely. At the General Election, we laid perfectly clearly before the electorate that we would not allow the will of the electorate to be thwarted by another place, and I think there is ample justification there for taking precautions and not waiting until the trouble has actually arisen, and not waiting in fact until the trouble might have passed out of hand through the effluxion of time.

So much for the legislative programme. Now I will turn to the points put to me by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. He raised certain points on foreign affairs. I think he will agree with me that in the course of the Debate there will be opportunities for speaking on foreign affairs, but I must say we are greatly disturbed at the increasing tension in foreign affairs and the attitude of the U.S.S.R. representatives, which is gravely imperilling the work that was done in trying to build up the United Nations organisation. I would rather leave a fuller discussion to a later time.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the discussions at Geneva. I am not today in a position to make a precise statement. A full statement will have to be agreed with the Governments concerned, but the negotiations, as would have been expected, have been very prolonged and difficult. We have every hope that agreement will be reached at Geneva between most, if not all, of the 17 countries there represented. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I hope, be making a further statement in a few days' time. I would, however, indicate the principles on which these negotiations are being conducted. First, I would recall the statement I made in the House of Commons on the day when the United States proposals were published. On that occasion, I said there was no question of any unilateral surrender of preferences, and that that could only be considered in relation to, and in return for, a reduction of tariffs and other barriers, which would mean mutually advantageous arrangements for the expansion of trade. There can, therefore, be no question of our abolishing the whole system of Imperial Preference.

Secondly, we have throughout maintained the closest touch with our friends from the other Commonwealth countries. Further, we have kept in mind the principal aim, namely, the need for the restoration of equilibrium in our economic relations with the Western hemisphere, and particularly the United States, and we hope we have secured greater access to markets, for products not only from this country, but from the Colonial Empire, which is very important. They should result in a valuable increase in the dollar earnings in the sterling area as a whole. So far from weakening the economic co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth, I think it will be found that the agreement, and the prospects it holds out, should make for the further economic development of the Commonwealth, and should strengthen our ability to deal with the very serious crisis through which we are passing.

The next point with which I would deal is the question of our Defence Forces. The Government have continued the review of the size of our Forces in relation to the responsibilities which we are called upon to carry out. They also have to have relation to the economic resources of this country. We have considered it right to examine the question of any possible reductions, not only in the remainder of this financial year, but also in the period of 18 months ending 31st March, 1949, and against the background of the needs of our long-term defence policy in so far as they can be foreseen at this time. It is difficult to foresee things at the present time—[Laughter]—in a very disturbed world. I am bound to say that I do not find it a laughing matter. Examination of that policy, as the House knows, is still proceeding, and it would be wrong to expect, at an early date, answers to all the far-reaching and fundamental questions which arise when one begins to consider what may arise in the future. None the less, it is essential to look further ahead, while ensuring that the decisions taken now do not conflict with the long-term needs of our defence policy. Subject to these reservations, the Government have decided upon further substantial reductions in the size of the Armed Forces in the next 18 months. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition saying that he would like to wield the blue pencil with vigour over our Estimates. I do not know the colour of the pencil, but we have had a look into these things very closely. The Army, which has been bearing—

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that with 140,000 men under the control of the Admiralty, it is possible to man only one cruiser and four destroyers for the Home Fleet?

I mean to say nothing of the sort—really, the right hon. Gentleman might wait until I deal with the point. If he will allow me one more page—I am dealing with his right hon. Friend—I will deal with his point. The Army, which has been bearing the major share of our special post-war commitments, naturally shows the most striking reductions. By March, 1949, the Government expect that the Army's overseas responsibilities falling on British manpower will be limited to our share of the occupation of Germany, the requirements of the Middle East, and the small but important garrisons needed at a variety of overseas stations. The reductions in the size of the Army must be related to its special commitments, and the process will therefore still be gradual. It is quite imposible to compress it arbitrarily.

The position in the case of the Navy is different. There has to be a reduction of operational strength, and it has been decided, deliberately, that the strain of this should be taken here and now, even at the expense of some degree of temporary immobility. In view of certain alarmist references which have appeared in the Press, I would emphasise the word "temporary." I do not know where the figures came from. The right hon. Gentleman seems to believe everything he sees in the Press.

What figures?

The figures which have been quoted about one cruiser, etc. I do not know where they came from.

The figures were one cruiser and four destroyers for the Home Fleet. If those figures are not true, we shall be glad to hear them contradicted. It is less than the fleet we gave to Russia during the war.

Those are not the correct ones. I was not aware that that point would be raised, and I have not the exact figures, but I am quite prepared to give those figures in the course of the Debate.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman has not been made responsible for these grave decisions, which he says they studied with great attention, without having on the tip of his tongue the actual four or five ships, or six or seven ships, which are reserved to the Home Fleet? Surely, as Prime Minister of the country, he ought to know.

I cannot give without notice the exact number of ships; it is a point to be raised in Debate. The short point is that any temporary immobility will be during the re-sorting out of the ships and personnel—a purely temporary manning. The suggestion that this is a sudden reduction of the entire Fleet to a kind of care and maintenance basis is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is perfectly willing to give the facts in the course of the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] Hon. Members do not seem to realise that we cannot have two speeches at once.

In the case of the Air Force there will be further reductions in establishments, more especially in overseas commands. The reductions will be spread gradually over the period in the interests of operational efficiency. I will give some actual figures. The 1947 Defence White Paper foreshadowed that the size of the Armed Forces at 31st March, 1948, would be 1,087,000. On 6th August I put the revised Estimate at 1,007,000. We now expect the figure to be 937,000, a reduction of 150,000 on the original forecast. I would also mention that it is expected that industrial labour employed on Service production and related activities will be considerably less at 31st March, 1948, than was anticipated. So far with regard to figures of reductions. I was only proposing at this juncture to give the broad picture. The detail will appear in the Estimates, and the matter can be further debated in the course of these discussions. That covers, I think, almost all the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the major issue facing this country is our economic position. I entirely agree. The problem was very fully discussed and the essentials of the problem were very fully set out before we parted for the summer Adjournment. Since that Debate the world situation has deteriorated. Our own position has necessarily got worse with it. Indeed, the immediate effect of that Debate was to accentuate the dollar drain. Since then we have had the Paris Report of the Committee of European Co-operation, setting out very clearly the whole European position and our position as part of Western Europe. I am quite sure that hon. Members will have seen to what extent our particular difficulties are due to the general causes affecting Western Europe as a whole, and the relation of Europe to the Western Hemisphere.

The House will wish to have a full report on the situation and an account of the measures which have been taken and are going to be taken in this country, to deal with it. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be speaking in the course of these Debates. With regard to the batting order, that was, I imagine a jocular reference to the particular status of a particular Minister. Generally speaking, the batting order depends on what the opposition is at a particular moment and the state of the pitch. On this occasion, in dealing with economic affairs, the Minister of Economic Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will both be batting. On other occasions it may be the Lord President of the Council who will be batting first, or the Home Secretary. With regard to the position of the Minister for Economic Affairs, his position is one of co-ordination. There is no question of interfering with the departmental responsibilities of Ministers. His function is, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and they act in the closest collaboration—to coordinate the economic effort both at home and abroad in all its various ramifications.

I would like to say one word in regard to the Marshall proposals. It would be quite fatal for us to have wishful thinking and to imagine that we can depend on some other help than our own. We have got to go all out on our own efforts. Whatever assistance we can get—and the greatest assistance may not be direct but could come through a raising of industrial and economic conditions all over the world—we have to set our own house in order. The problem before us, the work we have to do in participating in world recovery, is to get increased production for home and for export, increased exports directed to dealing with our balance of payments, and Colonial development in the interests of the people of the Colonies, of this country, and of the world. We will have to have a reduction of some imports, a reduction of some of our overseas expenditure abroad, a redeployment of our resources at home, a redirection and reduction of capital investment at home, and measures to deal with inflation. These points will be elaborated in the course of this Debate.

What is meant by redirection of capital investment?

It means concentrating more on one point and not on the other.

Does it mean that people are to be forbidden to invest such money as they have, as they think wisely, and ordered to invest it in enterprises or securities when they think these are injudicious? What does this word "redirection" mean?

I am afraid that I was using the term in a rather technical sense in the way they talk of national investment in capital goods as compared with consumer goods.

It means the direction of the Government's division of the expenditure between capital and current expenditure?

It means more than that. There is the sum total going into capital expenditure, part of it Government and part of it private. That makes demands on the available resources of raw materials and labour. In view of the shortage of raw materials in particular, there has to be a redirection, a slowing down, on some sides and acceleration on others. That is all it means.

It is not telling the individual investor what he has to do?

No, not at all. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will exercise their full rights to criticise. I am sure they will claim that there are many things which we are doing now which we ought to have done before. But we must face this extremely difficult situation and it will require the efforts of the whole country.

Why then, by introducing partisan constitutional legislation, do you seek to divide the country?

The answer is that the party opposite, unlike the party on this side of the House, seems to claim that because this party has a different point of view from them, therefore they cannot support its efforts. When we were in the war we came into the Government and we did not attempt to upset the capitalist system. We had to accept it because that was the will of the majority of the House. The will of the majority of the House at present is that Government policy should be carried on on the basis of the policy of this party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "We will all work together if only you will adopt the Conservative policy." We cannot do that.

The right hon. Gentleman was talking about national unity. Does he not realise that the reason we cannot support him at the moment is because we believe that he and his Government are the cause of all our troubles?

That was not the view we took when we supported the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said that we had very great reason to think of the cause of all the trouble. The short point is that there is a unity of effort in this country that transcends party.

Why do you not encourage it?

It takes two to do that. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should frankly say, "We accept the fact that you have a mandate for this or the other Bill and we will support you." But the line always taken is, "We will support you if you will be Conservative." Well, we will not be. Whatever differences there may be in this country we are all united in our determination to carry this country through this extremely difficult time. I do not attempt to suggest that we are not at a very very serious time. Whatever may be our differences, I am quite sure that the whole country will go all out to restore the prosperity and position of this country in the world.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Simmons.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

I beg to move,

"That

(1) Standing Orders" Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 shall have effect as if, for any reference to a time mentioned in the first column of the following Table there were substituted a reference to the time respectively mentioned in the second column of that Table:

I take this opportunity to refer to matters concerning the National Coal Board, and, in particular, to refer to what is commonly, and I think accurately, described as the iron curtain which the Government have erected around the National Coal Board. Secrecy always gives rise to rumour, and, if some of the rumours—and there are many—which are now current surrounding the affairs of the National Coal Board are not entirely accurate, then the Government have only got themselves to thank. So far as I can see there has been no good reason why the affairs of the Coal Board should not have been given the fullest possible publicity, and I think that one of the deterrents to recruitment for the coal industry is the secrecy with which the affairs of the National Coal Board are enshrouded.

A number of Questions have been asked in this House from time to time during the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and he declined to answer the very large majority of those Questions. From this side of the House there have been continuous protests, but the protests have not been confined to this side of the House, and I am interested to read a statement made by the Chairman of the Liberal Party Executive at Sheffield, which I hope will have the active support of Liberal hon. Members in this House. He said:

"The iron curtain behind which the operations of the Coal Board take place must immediately be lifted. There is a growing anxiety about the absence of effective Parliamentary control over the Board."

Then, it was the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) who, in a Debate which largely concerned the affairs of the Coal Board and this question of secrecy, on 3rd April, made this reference to nationalised industries. The hon. Member said:

"When the legislation is going through Parliament the Ministers say one thing, but, once it becomes the law of the land, they are very much inclined to shirk their responsibilities, and to shelter behind the Boards which they themselves have appointed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 2306.]

Therefore this matter, which has been objected to on all sides of the House—and I could quote a number of other instances—should be regarded as a House of Commons matter and one which should command the attention of all hon. Members in the interests of the authority of this House. I am very glad to see the new Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, in his place, and I should like, if I may, to congratulate him upon his elevation. I myself, in conjunction with everyone in this House, wish him success in his task. We shall be very interested to know whether the policy which his predecessor adopted with regard to Questions in this House about the National Coal Board is going to be pursued by him or not. I feel that he has a great opportunity now. Of course, while he was Parliamentary Secretary, he was necessarily associated with that policy, and, in a number of cases, he had to give that refusal to answer Questions which caused us so much indignation. I would now like to give him the assurance that, if today he says it would be right to give the House full information about the affairs of the National Coal Board, there will be no sneers from this side of the House on the ground of inconsistency, having regard to his previous answers. It will be most warmly welcomed. In my humble experience as a back bencher, I have always felt that, provided the rights of the House are acknowledged by Ministers, hon. Members are singularly reasonable in questioning Ministers. If a Minister is prepared to give all the information in reason, the House is always ready to accept it, and is not unduly exacting.

I am afraid that I must refer to some of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who elected to pick and choose the Questions which he would answer, apparently according to his taste and fancy. After a very careful examination of those Questions which he answered and those he refused to answer, I have been unable to discover any underlying distinction at all. Indeed, he constituted himself the arbiter of the suitability of the Question. On one occasion, on 1st May, he said:

"I am responsible to the requirements of the House in general; indeed, I must be, but it depends on the merits of the Question that is put to me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1947; Vol. 436. c. 2149.]

According to HANSARD, hon. Members very naturally ejaculated "Oh." In my submission, there could be no question about the propriety of the Questions. Mr. Speaker would not permit Questions to be put on the Order Paper which are not, prima facie, within the Minister's responsibilities, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, although he refused to answer, never so far as I am aware, took exception to the Question being in order. The right hon. Gentleman never, as no doubt he could have done, took the point that the Question was out of Order on the ground that it was not within the scope of his responsibilities.

I want to rest my case for full Parliamentary information upon the text of the Act which set up the National Coal Board. In my submission, the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. are entirely clear. Section 3 (4) gives to the Minister unqualified right to obtain information. I think the Section ought to be read to the House. It is as follows:

"(4) The Board shall afford to the Minister facilities for obtaining information with respect to the property and activities of the Board, and shall furnish him with returns, accounts and other information with respect thereto and afford to him facilities for the verification of information furnished, in such manner and at such times as he may require."

Nothing could be stronger than that. If the intention of Parliament, which we can only now assume from the terms of the Act, was that the Minister should be limited in any way as to the information he could obtain or divulge, surely, that would have been put into the Statute? There can be no question that the Minister has absolute responsibility for the National Coal Board, and complete control over it. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he will look at Section 2, with which, no doubt, he is quite familiar, he will see that it states that the Minister appoints the members of the Coal Board, and, in conjunction with the Treasury, he determines what remuneration they shall receive, and, further, by regulations, he provides their tenure of office. Therefore, the Minister has complete control over the National Coal Board. He has the fullest possible access to any information he requires, and, that being so, I can see no excuse whatever for his not divulging that information to this House.

On 19th September the former Minister of Fuel and Power addressed a Press Conference, which was reported in "The Times" of 20th September. The report read:

"Mr. Shinwell, speaking at a Press Conference, said that there had been a lot of silly talk and ill-informed criticism of the Coal Board. … It might suit certain people to criticise the Coal Board for political reasons, but those who knew what the Coal Board was doing, and he included among those the National Union of Mineworkers, were fully convinced that … the criticism was completely without foundation and those who did not like that could lump it."

I do not know whether that is one of the public utterances which the former Minister wishes to repudiate. We are getting rather accustomed to his whining that he has been misquoted. Be that as it may, what he then said was entirely of a piece with his conduct towards this House. He sneered at those people who are ignorant. We have been ignorant because he has kept us in ignorance, notwithstanding our persistent demands for information. This House does not enjoy the privilege of the Minister's confidence, as does the National Union of Mine-workers.

I would now refer to some of the Questions—there has been a great number, but I will only mention a few—which have been put to the former Minister, and which he, personally, or through his Parliamentary Secretary, has refused to answer during the past six months or so, and which will, I think, give a fair sample of the sort of thing about which I am complaining. On 19th May, it was stated by the National Coal Board that they had placed £50,000 at the disposal of certain trade unions in the county of Durham for distribution to mineworkers in that county who, through no fault of their own, had been out of work. On 21st May, I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power

"whether he is satisfied that all mineworkers received their fair share irrespective of trade union membership."

The Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the then Minister, replied:

"Subject to their Statutory functions and duties the National Coal Board have the same liberty as any other employer to make such payments to their employees as they consider proper and in such manner as they see fit, and I regret that I have no information on the points raised by the hon. Member other than that contained in the statement issued by the Board on 9th May."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 261.]

Surely, it is right for an hon. Member of this House, when he knows that public money has been dispensed, to do his utmost to ensure that that money has not been dispensed with any discrimination of the nature of political or industrial favour. I think it was very unfortunate that the then Parliamentary Secretary declined to give me any answer or assurance on that point.

I will give another example. The Government have seemed particularly anxious to conceal from this House the industrial relations of the National Coal Board. On 3rd July, I asked the Minister of Labour:

"if he will identify the trade unions which are recognised by the National Coal Board for purposes of negotiation about wages and conditions in the industry."

The right hon. Gentleman replied:

"No Any question of recognition is a matter entirely for the parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 177.]

In my submission, one cannot treat the National Coal Board as a private party. It is financed with public money, and is a matter of grave national concern. It is a monopoly which has been erected in place of private enterprise in the coal industry, but because it has taken the place of private enterprise that, surely, provides no grounds for saying that it should operate in private. Because it is a monopoly is no reason why it should be irresponsible. Therefore, I feel that this House should have access to the fullest information with regard to such matters as the recognition of trade unions by the National Coal Board.

On 15th November, my hon Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised in Debate the question of the salaries paid to members of the Divisional Coal Boards. The then Minister declined to give him any information, but, towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman did say:

"The accounts will go before the Public Accounts Committee and the Committee can at any time ask for information on any item connected with those accounts. That is traditional, and no one can take exception to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 482.]

That is all very well, but, as the House knows, the Public Accounts Committee cannot begin examining these accounts until 18 months or two years after the event. Therefore, while it has a certain value, it really has a very small value in assuring the control of this House over the finances of the National Coal Board. Indeed, the Board may well be insolvent long before the Public Accounts Committee is able to examine the situation.

We should derive some warning from what is happening in France. I am informed that at present the French Government are having to provide a 50 per cent. subsidy upon every ton of coal raised. This House is, above all, the guardian of the nation's purse, and unless we have some opportunity of watching the financial progress of the Coal Board we may well find ourselves suddenly faced with a situation either of having to pay a prohibitive price for coal or else of having to provide a very heavy subsidy out of the Exchequer. Yet we have not been able to get any figures with regard to costs of production. The Ministry has insisted upon treating the Coal Board as though it was a sort of subsidiary company with a limited liability. One cannot by any manipulation or legal fiction limit the liability of this nation with regard to its national property. We have bought the industry, and it looks as though it will be a pretty expensive affair. But at least this House should have every possible opportunity to keep down the cost.

A great number of Questions have been asked, and I will give one or two more instances. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) asked about the number of new motor cars ordered by the Coal Board for the delectation of its officials. That is a sore subject with a lot of people, and we ought to be told the answer, because a lot of people write to me saying that these officials drive about in magnificent cars, and so on. They may be under a misapprehension, but, if so, surely, it would be much better that they should know. Silence provokes these kinds of rumours. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked questions with regard to a political poster which was issued by the National Coal Board. That was a rather remarkable document, because it contained the statement that

"The alternative to the policy of nationalisation is capitalist Fascism."

When the Coal Board puts out that sort of thing at the public expense, it is right that an hon. Member of this House should ask a question about it. Further, it is right that he should have an answer. I hope that the new Minister will agree about this. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) asked a question about the £10,000 which was being allowed for the expenses of the members of the National Coal Board. The then Minister told us that that was the figure which had been allowed, but he would tell us no more. He would not tell us what the money was for, or how it was allocated among the members of the Board, or how it would be accounted for, or anything of that sort. He just flatly refused to answer. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked about the acquisition of properties by the National Coal Board, and he got a flat refusal. All these are matters about which we should know.

It does not necessarily involve interference by the Minister with what the Coal Board does. It is a request for information. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor seemed incapable of distinguishing between the two things. It is quite right, perhaps, that he should refrain from an undue amount of interference with the affairs of the Coal Board, although he has almost unlimited power to do so. At the same time, that is no reason why he should not answer our questions, and I insist that great harm has been done in the country, and that the National Coal Board has lost a lot of the good will it might have had, because of the secrecy with which its activities have been surrounded. Not only that; but, what is also a very grave matter, this House has been flouted. An attempt has been made to oust the jurisdiction of this House. It is a matter of very far-reaching principle, because it will not only apply to the affairs of the National Coal Board; it may well apply to the affairs of a number of other nationalised industries. Therefore, I await with considerable anxiety the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Apparently, his predecessor regarded the status of this House as something inferior to the Communist controlled National Union of Mineworkers. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be strong, that he will re-assert the right of Parliament, and will give the House what is due to it. I am confident that if he takes that course he will get a great deal of help from all quarters of the House.

Several of the statements which were made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) will, I think, receive some measure of general agreement from the men who actually do the work of producing the nation's coal. During the Recess, I visited a coal mine in my constituency which achieved the record output, and where there is no doubt the miners are pulling their full weight in producing the coal which the nation needs. But the Coal Board is certainly coming under fire from the men at the coal face, although the criticism is from a slightly different angle from that indicated in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I believe that we should obtain the fullest possible information about the finances and activities of the Coal Board. After all, we are a democracy, and we should have the right to question on the Floor of the House the activities of the Coal Board. The people who are anxious to see the fullest possible light thrown on the activities of the Coal Board are those who believe that there is something in the assertion that if we do not keep a vigilant eye on the Coal Board, it will become a top-heavy bureaucracy carrying on the traditions of private capitalism. It is from that point of view that we want the fullest possible information.

Although certain criticisms may be made against the Minister, who has refused to answer questions, I would ask: how much information did we really have about the working of the coalowners under private capitalism? It depended upon whether or not a company was registered at Somerset House. Very often we had a great deal of difficulty in finding out what profits the coalowners were making and what were the salaries of the managing directors under private capitalism. The information that I would like to obtain is how the salaries of the Coal Board, under nationalisation, compare with the salaries of the managing directors of the Bairds, Dalmellingtons and big combines which controlled the industry under private capitalism. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are much higher today."] Well, I have my doubts.

When a request is made by the Opposition for the fullest possible information about the finances of the Coal Board, I would very much like to support that request in order that we may get the fullest possible information about the compensation which is to be paid to the coalowners. If the industry is going to become bankrupt and not pay its way, because under private ownership the industry was inefficient, are we still going to pay big sums in compensation to the people who are dispossessed? There is a very definite feeling in the coalfields that inflated salaries are being paid, and I entirely agree that we should obtain the fullest information and have the searchlight of democracy turned upon our nationalised industry.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke about industrial relations. In some parts of the industry, industrial relations have deteriorated because of the continuation in the industry of Conservative-minded capitalist managers. What is wrong with the Coal Board is that it took over too many Tories who were in key positions in the coal mines. Therefore, I hope no attempt will be made to suppress the fullest possible information. A great deal of the future success of the Coal Board depends upon its handling of industrial relationships, and it has made blunders in that respect during the Recess. It was a blunder to negotiate with two different unions in the mining industry. It was also a blunder to give the higher paid sections of the workers increased wages, while neglecting the claims of the men at the very bottom. We want to see the fullest possible co-operation between men and management, in order that we may achieve the necessary target.

A great deal depends upon the consultative committees. I attended a meeting of the consultative committee in the colliery which achieved the record output. The chair was taken by the colliery manager who, I believe, was a very efficient manager because he had the confidence of the men. He opened the meeting of the consultative committee by saying, "We will take the minutes of the last meeting, gentlemen." He refered to the miners who were selected democratically by the men to attend the meeting as "gentlemen." [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not, indeed! But were they described in that way under private ownership? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] We know they were not. The miners were never treated as gentlemen by the coalowners; the coalowners did not describe them as gentlemen, but something very different, and often with a sanguinary adjective in front. The industry is a thousand times better under nationalisation than under private enterprise, and I hope it will not go back to those conditions. The men are slogging away for all they are worth, producing the coal, because they believe that they are now co-operating in mining as a social service and are not being exploited. But I do agree that we should have the fullest information in order that we can turn upon any bureaucracy the criticism of democratic opinion from the men at the bottom.

I am wondering whether the speakers in this Debate are trying to get at the Minister; otherwise, who are they trying to get at? I hear something about "Quislings." I know a little about mining. I happen to have in my constituency the Grimethorpe colliery. I have spent some very anxious hours in Yorkshire. The National Coal Board and their area boards took over a situation that was extremely difficult. They had to look at the set-up anew. They had to look to private enterprise. They had to look to the educational system to produce the technicians. They had to look to private enterprise to find the people to fill technical posts. They had to have first-class mining technicians and engineers. Where did they go for them? They looked to the Mining Association. They had to have people who understood the distributive side of the coal industry. Where had they to go? They had to go to private enterprise to find them. They were compelled to do that, because our educational system had not given us the opportunity to produce that type of expert. I say this boldly: the National Coal Board and the area boards are doing a great job of work, bearing in mind the big job they took in hand.

We on this side of the House have not forgotten the Reid Report. We know what it told us about the coal industry. If I remember rightly, we have been told that the National Coal Board has to reorganise, and that it will take £150 million to reorganise the industry that the nation has taken over. I think it ill becomes anybody to comment critically when we have such a burden as that to face. It is not long since I went down a pit. I had the pleasure of taking the Minister down. We had to walk three miles. Some miners have to walk three miles, and some four miles, underground to work. I know a pit in Yorkshire where the miners have to walk four and a half miles to work. Those are the conditions in some pits in Yorkshire. Because of the distances some miners have to walk to get to work, they spend only four hours at the coalface. I would sooner work 10 hours at the coalface and walk less. These facts illustrate some of the problems that the National Coal Board are facing. The Coal Board, from both the management side and the men's side, are sick and tired of perpetual criticism. They have not been given an opportunity to answer.

What I am worried about is the set-up in the pit where the coal is produced. From my own close examination of the situation, I would say that the problems that have been taken up by the National Coal Board and the area boards are so great and grave that the rank and file have not been able to understand the situation properly, and there is not today that co-ordination, there is not that understanding, that is necessary, simply because the situation has not been "got across" and explained properly. I am hoping that the area boards will be like football teams and that they will improve by trial and error. I know there are some square pegs in round holes. It may be that the outside left will have to be shifted. I am hoping that if people are found to be inefficient, they will be shifted and people put in their places who can fill the bill. But while the rank and file as a whole do not understand, while there is a misconception of the policy of the area boards and the National Board, there will not be the best results. The rank and file do know, however, that they have something to do; and they are putting their trust to a great extent in the area boards and in the National Coal Board. But they do want, by some means, closer co-operation between the technicians and the rank and file.

I know some pits today where nothing has been done with regard to mechanisation. We must have first-class men there who know about the technical work of installing and operating machinery. I hope we shall have not only technicians but men with practical experience. I have known instances where technicians with technical knowledge could not deal with the practical side. They were people who assumed things on averages and on reports. A good deal can be done if the rank and file are taken into consideration. I am not going to talk about the Grime-thorpe situation, except to say that if we had had a clear conception and understanding between the management and the workpeople, the Grimethorpe situation would not have arisen. It arose simply because of lack of understanding, lack of approach, and lack of knowledge so far as the operations of the Board were concerned. We shall not have clear understanding between the two sides of the industry so long as the national Press and other people are continually and regularly condemning people for doing their best, and, particularly, if Members of Parliament state that men who have come into the industry from private' enterprise, and who are holding technical positions, are types of people who are Quislings. If we have that sort of thing, we shall get nowhere.

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) in what he said. In doing so I have no intention to criticise the activities of the Coal Board or the activities of the miners at the coal face or in the colliery areas. I think that in a great many areas they are doing an admirable job, and it is a great comfort to the country to see that they are breaking targets up and down the country. Particularly in the North-East I think they are pulling their weight. But there seems to be some confusion as to the object of this Debate. The objection is that the Minister—or the late Minister—will not give information as to what is happening. My hon. Friend below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes), said he could not get information out of private companies and limited companies with regard to salaries of managers and managing directors. In this circumstance, however, we are in a very different position, because the Coal Board is being financed by public funds, and it is the duty of every Member of this House to see that those funds are properly administered; and, if any waste is taking place, it should be tackled at once and cut down.

What can the general public think when they get no information at all as to the costs of production of coal, and as to activities in the coalfield, so far as the financial set-up is concerned? Yet they are told they must pay another 4s. a ton for coal. Surely, it is only fair to the nation as a whole that the Minister should, at the earliest possible opportunity, give to this House every possible information—not secret information that might do the activities of the Coal Board harm: I am sufficiently sane to see that the Minister cannot disclose private information that might damage the Coal Board. Surely, however, we ought to know something as to the salaries paid to these officials out of public funds? I do not want to repeat things that have been said that have no foundation in truth, but I hear periodically that large houses are bought in which to house the staff and officials of the Coal Board, and that the prices paid for them are above what private buyers are prepared to pay. If that information is wrong, for heaven's sake let the House through the Minister deny it, so that these rumours do not get about, and so that the Coal Board can have the sympathy and the confidence of the people.

I remember, when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill was going through Committee upstairs, pressing the then Minister very hard on the matter of information, asking that he should give to the House and to the country a record of its activities through both yearly accounts and half-yearly accounts of the costs of production. The Minister assured the Committee upstairs on the point. He said, "I have nothing to hide. I shall give the fullest possible information. The House of Commons will be told by Question and answer." Perhaps he did not use those very words, but he indicated that the House would be given the fullest possible information. I say, frankly, I am disappointed at the late Minister's refusing to give the information to which I think the public are entitled, particularly in view of the fact of these increases in the price of coal which are being put on to the consumer. Industry is being asked to pay a bigger price for coke. I do think it is high time some information should be disclosed. The fullest possible information ought to be given to the House, and I think that Members in all parts of the House would like to know that things are going on well.

I do absolve myself, if I may, from any suggestion that in what I have said there is any question of criticising the work of the miners. Nor is there any question of criticising the miners in what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coalfield said. We are not on that subject at all. We are criticising the Department for not giving the fullest possible information as to how this nationalised industry is going on. The whole country is in the dark, except a privileged few in the Department. The late Minister did not seem to mind that, apart from those few in that privileged section, people were in the dark. He thought they did not care and could be left alone and kept in ignorance. I strongly support the plea for the fullest possible information being given to this House by question and answer to any Member in any part of the House in the interests of the national finances. Any Member, I feel sure, will agree that if we do not raise this matter on every possible opportunity, we are not carrying out our job to see that public funds are well spent.

I am a little bit concerned about taking part in this Debate because of the way in which it has been raised. My reason for taking part is not to ask for information that is likely to damage the National Coal Board and its administration, but, rather, to make the position of the public perfectly clear. There is always the difficulty, when information is asked for and is refused, that that creates a very strong suspicion that there is something to hide. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Holmes) referred to Grimethorpe. I am not apologising for referring to it, because I think what happened there is an admirable reason why, if mistakes are made and the wrong advice is given, information to that effect ought to be clearly and openly stated. I visited Grimethorpe on my own, because when men are on strike for a long period and thousands of others are striking in support of them, with a situation such as we have in the country at the moment, with the miners having the nationalisation they desired, there must be something seriously wrong. There must be something seriously wrong if, in these circumstances, men continue out of work for a period of five or six weeks. I am one of those who believe that the best and easiest way to find out the true position in relation to a dispute of that sort is to go and talk to the men themselves. I went to Grimethorpe on the Tuesday before the strike finished, and I was amazed to find out what was the actual position. The men made no bones at all about the fact that they were not on strike but were locked out by the Coal Board. On more than two or three occasions, when numbers of them had presented themselves to the pit to commence work during those five weeks, it was closed to them; they were refused the right to return to work. I asked why that position had arisen, and why it was that a decision had been taken by someone who gave as a reason the fact that extra production had to be got out of the pit.

The facts given to me by the men who worked at the coal face, the coal cutters, were very illuminating. If men can talk to someone, as they did to me when I arrived in their midst, and openly give information which proved that there was something definitely wrong in the decision that had been taken in asking them to work an extra two-foot stint, why was it not openly available to those who had taken the decision that the men must do what they said they could not do. I asked for information, and these are the facts I elucidated. The pit had been producing 20,000 tons of coal per week. The output per man was very high. The average output was some 13½ tons per man. They said that with the five-day week and the available machinery for bringing up the coal from the pit it was impossible to raise even the 20,000 tons of coal. There was only one shaft in the pit, and they told me it was impossible to bring up all the coal over a period of weeks, with the result that their output had been some 18,500 tons. If that was the position—I do not understand coalmining, although I understand expressions of opinion from the class to which I belong—and it was proved impossible to bring up 20,000 tons of coal in the five-day week, then it was impossible by sensible reasoning to think that they could get more coal than they were already capable of getting during the week. On asking what the position had been and how the decision had been arrived at by those who constituted the deciding committee, I was amazed to discover that two of the people responsible for taking the decision had not even seen the coal face where they said the extra two feet should be worked.

I am raising this matter because I think it is of the utmost importance. It is important that the men in the pit who have to do the work, whom we are asking to increase our coal production, should have perfect confidence in the knowledge of the people who are dealing with the position as far as the Coal Board is concerned. I say that because once we reach the stage where the men working in the pits cease to have confidence in the decisions of those responsible for administration from the top, then we shall get complete chaos in the industry itself. If, in a matter of this sort, where the Press put forward every possible reason why the men in Grimethorpe were still unemployed except the true reason, someone on the Coal Board, whoever it might be—I am not going to mention any names mentioned to me by the men—gave wrong information to those who had to put a decision into operation, there ought to be some way of knowing who the responsible person was. If wrong information is given, a completely wrong impression is given in the country as to why the miners remained out of work, which does the Government no good and the country no good, but merely creates in the minds of the public a very deep suspicion that there is something desperately wrong with the type of organisation which has been set up.

I think we all agree that, to begin with, the creation of the Coal Board is an experiment. We have to experiment in a completely new form of organisation, but when mistakes are made and wrong decisions are arrived at, it is completely unfair to blame the miners at the pits, especially when it is perfectly well known that in this case it was not the fault of the miners but the responsibility of some elected representative who either advised wrongly or was not prepared to admit that a mistake had been made, thereby creating the situation we had in Grimethorpe. I think that the information which is asked for, if it is in order to be constructive, ought to be given, but I agree also that a very strong hand must be kept on the people who ask for information in an attempt to destroy the organisation that has been built up to make the coal industry of this country a success. We have to keep a very even balance. I ask the Minister not to create suspicion in the industry. I ask him not to keep a veil of secrecy over difficulties, because it is only by our errors and difficulties that we shall create the right type of organisation.

It is not often that I can agree so much with the hon. Lady the. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). Until the very end of her speech I could have said, "Hear, hear," to almost everything she had said. Our plea is not that we want information to attack the Coal Board. We merely want information, and as Members of this House we are surely entitled to it. Just before the Recess I had occasion to ask the Prime Minister a Question about information being handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to certain outside bodies when it had not been made available to this House. I said at the time that I thought it was wrong and was derogatory to the standing of the House. I think that the same thing applies to questions which are put in regard to the Coal Board. The hon. Lady said clearly at the beginning of her speech that if information is refused publicly the public naturally think the worst. I ask the Minister to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor) has asked him to do, change the policy, be frank with the House, tell us what is happening. We want the facts, that is all. We hope the Coal Board will succeed. The fate of this country depends on the Board being a success. We merely ask the Minister to give us information if it is asked for in a proper way.

I want to put these points to the Minister. I went to South Wales twice at the beginning of this year, to talk to miners and their wives. The criticism I found of the Coal Board there was that most of the men said that they had the same bosses now as they had when the industry was run by private enterprise. They could not understand it, and asked the reasons. If the reasons were given it would help to allay a good deal of suspicion and fear. About a month ago I went to Seaham Harbour, and spoke to miners and their wives there. Their criticism of the Coal Board and its working was that there had been many good soft jobs going, and that the men who had not got them felt that those jobs had gone to the wrong men. They felt that those soft jobs had not only gone to the wrong men, but that there were not enough of those jobs. There was a good deal of suspicion in Seaham Harbour on this point, much of which would be allayed if we had more information. Therefore. I ask the Minister to reconsider the attitude of the Government, and not only give this House, but the miners themselves, all the information which is available.

Last night I went to Nuneaton and talked to miners there, and their criticism was that the Coal Board had appointed far too many non-producers, that the men who were getting the coal were carrying on their backs too many men who were doing nothing. That is a suspicion that ought to be put on one side, and the Minister could do something about it. I was told by some responsible people in one of the districts I visited that already certain coal mines were producing coal at a loss of more than £1 per ton. We should like to know whether that is true or not. If the Minister refuses to give us information to which we are entitled, that figure will increase, the task of the Coal Board will be harder, and the men who are trying to get the coal will be discouraged. As a back-bencher, I plead for the rights of this House to be re-established, and that we should be given the information to which we are entitled. If that is done many ugly rumours that may have no foundation in truth will be scotched. If that is done both miners and engineers—and when Members opposite are talking about the coal industry I ask them not to forget the engineers who run it—will put their hearts more into their job, and suspicion will be removed.

I wish to take this opportunity of a Debate on the National Coal Board to seek some information about certain aspects of the work of the Board. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that to expect the coal industry to be brought into a healthy state within seven months, after the depression, desuetude, and despair which existed for many years, was to expect the fantastically impossible. What was the problem, the terrific problem, which the Coal Board had to face when it came into power under the new Act? As I have indicated, the Board has been in existence for seven months. Every expert report on the condition of the coal industry in the years before the war pointed clearly to the fact that the industry was rapidly reaching a state where, unless some drastic steps were taken, it could not continue to produce even the reduced quantity of coal it was then producing. Men were leaving the industry because of conditions in the mines, the sad tale of industrial depression, the series of national strikes, and the like. But that is history, and I will not go into it deeply tonight.

I seek to obtain some information about the functioning of the Coal Board, because I think it is as well that this House and the public outside should be given as full information as possible on this subject. I do this with no reason which might prompt hon. Members opposite to seek to bring deliberately into disrepute the new administration. It is not my purpose to seek to prove that the Coal Board has been a failure. It may be proved to be a failure as an administrative setup after a certain time, but that is not the point so far as the future of the mining industry is concerned. The real point is that it is impossible for the nation to allow the industry to go back to the old regime. I have not heard that suggested seriously, even from the other side of the House. We must look upon the National Coal Board as an experiment in the new administration of a great national industry. As a result of our experience of the functioning of that new authority, we might have to make certain adjustments which are essential to achieve the ends we set out to achieve.

Take the question of sinking a new pit. It might appear from a cursory examination of the subject, that after soundings for coal had been taken, all that was required to be done was to get skilled men at work, to lay out the plan of the new sinking, to order new machinery, and in 12 months there would be a full pit which was being worked by a happy, thriving, community. That is reducing the problem to ridiculous simplicity. In the first place, the sinking of new pits involves a fundamental social problem, for unless they are sunk conveniently near to already existing mining communities, they will require to be staffed either by newly-trained personnel or by men from pits in other areas which have become disused. Whether this is possible or not, I do not know. I am seeking information as to the stage which has been reached by the National Coal Board in its plans for the sinking of new pits. I have tried unsuccessfully to find the information in various publications; and I am not aware of any statement having been made by the Government about it.

The problem of sinking new pits is not merely a question of machinery; it is a question of personnel. Therefore, before any definite step is taken for the development of new mines, there should be some detailed consultation between the Coal Board and those who are responsible for the general welfare of the mining community. I do not know what machinery exists for that purpose, and if there is no machinery for such consultations, I suggest that the matter should be given serious consideration, for new pits will have to be sunk sooner or later. The National Coal Board will probably be issuing, in accordance with the Act, periodical reports. Presumably, the first report will come along after the Board has been functioning for 12 months. In the meantime I make this serious suggestion to the Minister: there is—and this is a general impression that I have found in the country—a sad lack of public relationship in the functioning of the Coal Board. I cannot find any record of a statement having been made by a responsible officer of the Board on any of the plans of the Board, and of what has been achieved up to the present; in fact, almost the only occasion when the functioning of the Coal Board comes into the news is when there is trouble in a particular district. Therefore, I think that the question of the public relations of the Coal Board should be given serious attention.

I would like to make one or two suggestions. For instance, is there a public relations officer of the National Coal Board? If there is not a public relations officer, I suggest that consideration should be given to the appointment of such an officer, and that his function should be to convey to the public, through the Press, the wireless and by any other means, such as lectures, some idea of the operation of the Board, their plans, and a general outline of the whole working of the administrative set-up. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to that suggestion, and that if steps of that kind have not already been taken, they will be taken without delay, because I am sure that the more the public are taken into the confidence of the National Coal Board, either through the Minister or through a specially appointed public relations officer, the easier will be the position of the new régime. I am also confident that such a scheme of public relations and information would have the full support of the miners; in fact, I think the miners, through their pit production committees and area committees, should form a part of the public relations organisation. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reply to the points which I have raised. I suggest that he might give some indication, if none is already available, as to the progress made up to date in the sinking of new pits, and when it is likely that new pits will be brought into production.

The House must be grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising this important matter, because from the speeches which we have heard it is obvious that there is a very keen desire to discuss the National Coal Board in all its activities. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) who has spent her vacation so usefully in visiting Grime-thorpe. I can hardly pay a similar compliment to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas), because, during the Recess, I received a large green, expensive book published by the National Coal Board, dealing at great length, some 60 pages, with many illustrations, with the achievements of the National Coal Board in the field of miners' welfare to which he referred; and I feel that it is rather a feather in my cap, not professing to be so deeply interested in industrial matters as hon. Members opposite, that I should not have failed to notice the activities of the Coal Board in this somewhat expensive reference.

I do not know to which publication the hon. Gentleman refers, but, if it is a publication on coal, I certainly had a copy. I was not referring to the social activities of the miners which might be sponsored by the National Coal Board. I was trying to bring out the functioning of the Board in relation to industry, and the part which is being played, or attempted to be played, as between the Board and the elected representatives of the miners—the functioning of the Board as part of the industry and not merely from a social service point of view.

I am grateful for the hon. Member's explanation. I feel that if he is curious on this matter I should procure for him from His Majesty's Stationery Office a copy of the illustrated book which deals with some of the matters to which he has referred. My intervention in this discussion is not with a view to enlarging on the faults, if any, or virtues, if any, of the National Coal Board. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has raised the question of whether we are getting sufficient information from the former Minister of details of management and other business of the National Coal Board. He has raised a powerful and impressive argument that satisfies me that we are not getting that information. I am not so sure that the House, when it reflects on this matter, will want the information for which my hon. Friend makes such an eager claim. When the nationalisation of the coal mines came before this House and became the law of the country, I was among those who demurred at the policy. The policy of nationalisation of the mines seemed to me then; as it does now, to be unwise, a foolish one and probably an ill-starred one, and what I have heard this afternoon shows that these doubts and anxieties are not held only by me in this House.

Would the hon. Gentleman go back to private enterprise?

I am not at all sure that some of the deeds of private enterprise would not be enjoyed by the public today for they are not enjoying much under the present direction.

Would the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) be in favour of going back to the old régime of private enterprise? If not, what would be his positive suggestion for the future of the industry other than the National Coal Board?

If I answered the hon. Member for The Wrekin I should be distinctly out of Order, and I do not propose to enter into a general discussion although it seems to me that other speakers have done so. I content myself with saying that if we are to have, as apparently we are to have—the Gracious Speech is a further indication of what we are to expect—further nationalisation of the means and instruments of production and exchange, I would ask the House to consider what the position will be in this House if the desire of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have spoken this evening is gratified. If we nationalise not only coal and transport, but steel and iron and all the multiplicity of our national services, as I understand is the policy of His Majesty's Government, then the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is one which should be raised acutely indeed, because it is apparent that the managers of these State-owned industries cannot within the scope of the House of Commons give the detailed answers which the shareholders of a private limited liability company demand from their managers.

If the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has his way, it is perfectly obvious that something like 30 or 40 Ministers, each responsible for one of the nationalised industries, will occupy the time of the House—and it will not be the amount of time which has been spent today but a very much greater amount of time—in answering such questions as the hon Member for Sutton Coldfield says have not been answered. I suggest that the Government of the day and those who are students of Government must make up their mind on this important matter. This House cannot be a board of directors; it must remain a House of Commons. If it becomes a board of directors in deference to the wishes of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who want to raise questions of the detailed management of industry in what is a debating and political assembly, then I say this is one of the gravest objections—and there are many other objections—to the whole proposals of nationalisation which has not been considered by those who believe that the blessed word "nationalisation" will be a solution of all our troubles and difficulties.

The House will note the attitude of mind of some of those who have taken part in this Debate. I was struck by one of the speakers who said that he was sick and tired of criticism. Those who are in the way of conducting industry other than nationalised industry and who had experience of conducting industry during those last 20 or 30 bitter years have had to put up with criticism. They may have been sick and tired of it, but they continued still to supply all the goods and services the community required. Who are His Majesty's Government that they are to be so tender or so easily wearied in well doing? Who are they that they are not to be criticised? Who are they to say that they feel tired with the burden of carrying on one of our great national services?

I think, recalling what I said, my words were that the rank and file of the management were sick and tired of criticism.

The hon. Member did not comprehend what I said. I wrote it down and I am satisfied that he said that the rank and file of the management are sick and tired of criticism. But who are the rank and file of management? Those engaged in the industry, and, in a wider sense, the customers. Again, who are the management? In a wider sense, the right hon. Gentleman sitting there—the Minister of Fuel and Power, for the management of the National Coal Board is his Parliamentary responsibility and that of no one else. Is there any denial of that assertion? The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of a managing director. He has to answer the complaints, grievances and criticism of this House. What I am suggesting to the House is that that kind of thing, obviously, cannot indefinitely continue, and if the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field has his way—and I think he has a perfectly good case as far as it goes—and this House has to deal with a multiplicity of industries, it will reduce the whole Parliamentary system to a farce.

After all, rightly or wrongly, the people of this country look on the Minister—although he may not, realise it—in a homely sense. They look on him as their coal man, and they have had very friendly relations with their coal men in years gone by. Those relations were happy and jolly in past years. If the Minister of Fuel and Power is going to assume what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield desires him to assume he will be a great merchant, a great organiser of an industry, and a great distributor of the goods produced by his Department. That is the kind of business man the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield wants him to be, but personally I do not accept that view. I think the criticism made by my hon. Friend has been justified, and the elaborations of hon. Members opposite and of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool have been interesting, wide though they be of the point, but I do not agree with the direction of them. If the Minister, when he comes to reply, is going to say: "My predecessor did not answer all the Questions properly or did not answer them at all, but in future I am going to answer all complaints," he will place himself in an extremely difficult position. I hope he will not do so. I hope His Majesty's Government will think over their policy of nationalisation and the implications of it from the managerial point of view, not in terms of one or two industries being nationalised, but rather of 20, 30 or 40, with that number of right hon. Gentlemen as heads of different Departments answering questions in this House in regard to the services of this country. If that is going to be the case with all the industries which it is intended to take over, the Government will require to reconstitute the House of Commons on a new basis.

Under free and private enterprise we did not concentrate all aspects of an industry in one hand. The management of that industry was spread over and the Government of the day were always in a position to park the responsibility somewhere else. If someone complained that the coalowners were not managing their business well or the distributors of commodities were taking too big a profit the Government were able to take note and pass the matter on. The Government themselves were out of the business. Now owing to bad economics and unsound policy this Government are accepting the responsibility for all the socialisation of the means and instruments of production and exchange. They have no one on whom to park the responsibility as under the private enterprise system, when persons conducted the business with a due sense of responsibility to the public at large. When the State enters, controls and handles these industries it sets up one system of monopoly and all the protection that the public are going to have is five, 10, 15 or 20 right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. That is the proposal carried to its full length if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have spoken are to be answered. I hope that the Minister of Fuel and Power will make it clear how limited are the responsibilities and how restricted the services which he can give to this House, and by so doing he will show what a farce nationalisation is from the point of view of the customer.

I was greatly impressed by the number of assertions made by hon. Members opposite that they did not wish to ask any questions to embarrass the Minister or the Coal Board. It is moving to hear the assurances that they would not for one moment be a party to broadcasting any rumour which would cause embarrassment to any section of the coal industry. The House has the great advantage that hon. Members in all parts of the House, as we have heard tonight, made a sort of an investigation, or universal snoop or quiz in the coalfields during the summer Recess. I have the impression, however, that some hon. Members opposite have taken the opportunity to collect the wildest series of rumours that they could and are using this Debate to spread them as widely as they possibly can.

Can the hon. Member give the House one single example to support his accusation of rumours which we are endeavouring to spread?

I had not the privilege of hearing the hon. Member's speech. I took it from the remarks of those who followed him that the suggestion is that country houses of great distinction and slight value have been bought at outrageous prices which no private bidder, or bidder in the open market, would have paid. There is not a word of evidence that the Minister could answer, but there is a general challenge. There is the suggestion that officers of the Coal Board, for their own advantage, have caused such prices to be paid for such houses. I repeat that that is a wild rumour without foundation which has been spread in this Debate. That is an example which is sufficiently striking.

I suggest that it cannot possibly be the job of the Coal Board or of the Minister to send out a staff of high-pressure reporters to try to catch up with all this wildness in order to answer it in detail. I have dealt with the matter, although my intervention in the Debate was really intended to be by way of entering a caveat against what the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) said. The hon. Lady has had the privilege of being with the Grime-thorpe miners in the fifth week of their strike. I had no such privilege, although I had the embarrassment of being inadvertently on strike with them. I know how difficult it is for those who are not pit people themselves not to get a misconception about the miners. I differ sharply from the hon. Lady about what happened in Grimethorpe, what caused it, and what the results were, as they have been put by the hon. Lady. It seems to me that it is quite inappropriate for us to ask the Minister to deal in this Debate with questions which arise from Grimethorpe. The Debate was not initiated with that object. I understand that the Debate is limited to the question of the kind of information which is to come from the Minister about the conduct of the National Coal Board. The various things that happened in Grimethorpe were only very remotely connected with the Board. Whether they sprang ultimately from the personnel of the Board is another matter.

As to the Board giving information, I have had some personal experience of getting such information, and it is a matter which the Minister might have in mind. I quite see the point made about public relations, but there was an instance of a miner on strike and in London wishing to know whether his own pit was still on strike or not. In the days of private enterprise every office boy in the head office of the company would have known almost the minute the pit was back at work. It might be a mine producing gold in Rhodesia. The minute the pit went on strike the news would electrify the office. The minute it was back at work everybody in the office, down to the typist and the office boy, would know. There would be a telephone message that the pit was back at work getting more gold for the directors for their fees and their dividends. Such a close personal interest in the successful running of the job must be engendered in every employee of the Coal Board though not of course for the same purpose.

The miner who was on strike and in London wanted to know whether it was time for him to go back to his own pit. He was referred by the office of the Ministry of Mines to the office of the National Coal Board. At the office of the National Coal Board he was referred to six separate departments, each of which was in despair, saying, "It's not mine, I don't know this pit; it must be under some other department." Finally, the department responsible was found to be the Department of Industrial Relations. They gave information to the miner. The information was entirely correct, and it was only two days out of date. The question of arousing interest in every section of the Coal Board about what the industry is doing is one that might well be considered. We cannot have an inquest on what happened at Grimethorpe. I know that many hon. Members on this side played a magnificent part in dispelling the confusion which arose about this strike. I am sure it will be for the benefit of the House if there is an opportunity to hear their reports and conclusions about the strike.

Unlike some other hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House, I cannot claim to represent a mining constituency or to have had any personal experience at Grimethorpe. I represent a London constituency and I know that the profound interest which is taken in all that occurs in the mines is not limited to mining constituencies. It is nation-wide. That is my experience from having addressed meetings in London and elsewhere during the Recess. There is everywhere great admiration for the work which the miners have done and for the response which they are making to the appeals that have been made to them. There is also widespread interest in the activities of the National Coal Board and the area boards. Everyone is conscious of the overriding importance of the mining industry in these critical days.

The hon. Baronet who initiated this Debate raised the subject of the degree of information which the Minister should give about the activities of the National Coal Board. I would ask the House to bear in mind that one of the causes of the unrest in the days when the mines were under private ownership was the degree of secrecy with which the accounts of the coal owners were shrouded. There was a very great deal of dissatisfaction because the miners did not know the profits which were being made at the collieries, the fees being earned by directors, the extent of management expenses, and similar relevant information.

Was it not a fact that auditors who acted on behalf of the miners' unions had full access to the accounts?

The auditors may have had access to certain totals perhaps, but the accounts of public companies—still more so of private companies—did not give the detailed information which was of particular interest to the miners. Absence of that information was frequently a cause of great dissatisfaction in mining areas. Now that we have the great national experiment of a nationalised coal industry, the House and the whole country are watching with great interest the progress it is making and are anxious to have full information about it. I am sure we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having initiated this very profitable discussion.

It is a little odd, but it may nevertheless be a good thing not to try to lay down too hard and fast a rule as to the extent to which the Minister of Fuel and Power should answer questions as to the activities of the National Coal Board, area boards and management committees. As I have said, this is a great experiment, and it may be desirable that the machinery of our Parliamentary procedure for dealing with a nationalised industry should be approached experimentally. We have a new Minister of Fuel and Power and I would take this opportunity of offering my right hon. Friend my most sincere personal congratulations on his appointment. He has a great responsibility and a great opportunity. I am sure we all wish him every success in the post to which he has been called.

In my view it is right that the Minister should have considerable discretion as to the kind and the degree of information which he gives in answering questions of the type to which the hon. Member for Sutton Cold field (Sir J. Mellor) referred. Personally I thought it was unfortunate that the previous Minister of Fuel and Power did not frequently appear to be very forthcoming in giving the House information of the kind which the House appeared anxious to have. I ask the new Minister in exercising his discretion as to what Parliamentary Questions he will answer to bear in mind the wisdom wherever possible, unless there is some reason for secrecy—and there may be good reasons which only the Minister can estimate—of giving information about the particular matters, which concern Members of this House.

Subject to the reservation that the Minister must be the final judge, I would ask the Minister in his own interests in securing, as I am sure he wishes to, the confidence and support of the House, to give the House the fullest possible information about the activities of the National Coal Board, the area boards and what is happening in the mines. I am quite sure that in that way the Minister will be able to contribute materially to giving the country the detailed information it is so anxious to have as to the way in which this great national experiment of the nationalisation of the coal mines is proceeding.

This has been a useful, interesting and, in some respects, rather remarkable Debate. We have had the unusual spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) in some sort of loose alliance with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). I even find myself to the extent of 5 per cent. in agreement with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), and that is something which I do not think has happened before.

I am glad to have this opportunity—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising the Debate—of making a statement about the attitude of the Government to this important question of principle. I shall confine most of my remarks to the question of principle which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and other hon. Members have raised, but I shall also take the opportunity of saying something in reply to various comments on other matters connected with the National Coal Board.

To start with I think we can agree on certain propositions. The first is that socialised industries must be free from day to day interference by the Minister. There is not the slightest doubt that when the Coal Bill was going through this House—and the same applies to the other nationalisation Measures—it was the general understanding not only of the Government, but certainly of the party opposite as well, that there would be no interference in day to day matters by the Minister. I could very easily quote speeches by hon. Members opposite in support of that principle; and indeed the Act itself shows the traces of that, because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, the powers of the Minister are extremely restricted. It is true that hon. Members opposite wanted to go further. They wanted to restrict the Minister even more. Judged by what they say in their publication "The Industrial Charter," they are anxious, supposing they ever have the opportunity, to limit his powers in future, though they are not proposing, I understand, to denationalise the industry.

The right hon. Gentleman rather implied that I had given incorrect information to the House with regard to the terms of the Statute. What I said was that the Minister's powers to obtain information were unlimited. On the question of control, I also said that he had absolute control because although he can only give directions of a general character, none the less by virtue of his power of appointment and control of remuneration and the tenure of office and so on of the Coal Board, he has in fact absolute "control over the Board.

I am coming to all those details in a moment. It is quite evident, is it not, that power and responsibility must march together. So far as the Minister has powers he is responsible to the House. I fully accept that, "but if he has no powers then he is not responsible. I do not think that it is right or reasonable that a Minister should be required to answer when he has not got effective control. It is not necessary for me to argue whether or not the nationalisation Act was right in separating the Minister from the Board in this way and in laying it down that he should not interfere in day-to-day matters. I could argue that, but it is not in dispute, and perhaps we may therefore pass on.

What the Opposition say is that they agree that the Minister should not intervene, but why should he not give them the information as he has the powers to require the information? The answer in my view is that if the Minister were to use his powers to obtain information about day to day administration he would in fact be producing just that kind of bureaucratic paralysis which it is the whole intention of the Act to avoid. Anybody who has ever worked in a Civil Service Department would agree with me that if there is one major thing which leads civil servants to be excessively cautious, timid and careful, and to keep records which outside the Civil Service would be regarded as unnecessary, it is the fear of the Parliamentary Question. It is not so much a matter of whether or not I can intervene. The mere fact that I am continually asking for information to answer questions will undoubtedly produce those results. Of that I am convinced.

When all is said and done, we know perfectly well that many, if not most, Parliamentary Questions are put down with a view to supplementary questions being asked. That is perfectly fair. It is all part of the game. It is often the case that the supplementary question is designed to elicit some weakness which the Government is not anxious to divulge. If he were to answer the Question the Minister would be in the position of having to defend the Coal Board, and the same argument applies to other nationalised industries on matters of detailed administration. I think the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked my predecessor why the Coal Board used some particular type of furniture. The Minister could probably find an answer, but no doubt that simple answer would not be enough and he would have to anticipate supplementaries about the whole situation surrounding the purchase of that furniture. From that he would be led inevitably to intervene and to control.

As a matter of fact if they wished the Coal Board could no doubt say, "We are not going to do this. We will give you the information, but we shall not do anything you tell us to do unless you issue a direction." We do not want that sort of relationship to, develop between the Minister and the Coal Board. We must be clear that if the Minister is to get information on all points of detail like this it will lead to the worst kind of bureaucracy and to that very failure of the National Coal Board which hon. Members in all parts of the House have said they wished should not happen.

Surely questions also lead to far greater efficiency and prevent the wasting of public money?

No doubt these things are matters of opinion, but certainly Parliament in passing this Act decided that there should not be this kind of detailed information. However much I might wish to give the House that information, I am convinced that it would have a very serious effect on the efficiency of the National Coal Board, and that is why I am not intending to do it. I am not intending to answer Questions on points of day to day administration for which I am not responsible. May I add—it may anticipate what I may be asked—that this is not the only way in which statements of this kind can be made. If the National Coal Board wishes to inform the public about the type of furniture or the number of motorcars it has got, or any such thing, it is perfectly entitled to do so.

There is a great deal certainly in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) about publicity and public relations, but I do not want to be put in a position in which I am answering a lot of points of detail to the House, because that would lead me to intervene when I should not intervene.

When a serious industrial dispute takes place, as in the mines in Scotland, would it be competent for me to ask a Question, and would the right hon. Gentleman answer it?

As a matter of fact, in that case the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I agree also with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) said, that it is not easy to decide what is a day-to-day matter and what is a matter which involves policy. I concede that fully.

Would the Minister allow me to interrupt? Is it not a very dangerous practice for a Minister to withhold information from Members of this House on questions of public funds? This is a question of public funds.

With great respect, it is not public money. I will come to that point in a minute.

I want to sum up this part of my remarks by saying that in these detailed matters the National Coal Board is, in my opinion, in its relationship to the Minister no different from an ordinary private undertaking. I know that is probably going further than many of my hon. Friends would concede, but I think it must be made perfectly plain because, as I said, I have not the powers under the Act; I am not supposed to control matters of detail, and there is no reason why the Board should be subject to interference and questioning which does not affect private companies. After all, shareholders' meetings may take place once a year—I will come to that analogy in a moment—but no company is subject to a shareholders' meeting in continuous session, a large part of whose members are hostile to the whole enterprise; and, in fact, that is what you would be subjecting the National Coal Board to if the House insisted, and the Minister were to give way, on having all this information.

I do not really believe that there is a great deal of disagreement so far on this; at least, if there is, I shall be interested to know if it is the policy of the Conservative Party to insist that Ministers should answer on points of detail. It may be that they assume the prospect of their coming into power; in that case, the sooner they begin to think about what their position would be in those unlikely circumstances the better, but I certainly have heard no party pronouncement from them on this point. Nor do I think that their record in the past suggests that it would be very different on this from the Government. Certainly, so far as the Central Electricity Board is concerned, which was set up under an Act passed by a Conservative Government, there was no provision for Ministerial intervention, and as far as I know, Conservative Ministers have never been willing to disclose information on points of detail.

The Minister is making the point that we have no right to ask for day-to-day information which requires the Civil Service to go to a lot of unnecessary trouble; that it would be bureaucracy and would break down the system. What we would like would be to have information supplied to the Minister regularly which would not cause all that extra bureaucratic work. Are we not entitled to that?

I do not get detailed information about the day-to-day work of the administration of the Coal Board, and I do not seek to obtain it, because if I were continually to ask questions about the day-to-day administration, it would make it a very bureaucratic organisation. That is my position. Of course it does not mean that Parliament is debarred from seeking information. Indeed, on the contrary. If I may say so to the hon. Baronet, what he asks is not my affair; I have to decide whether I shall answer him or not. However, I would not for one moment suggest that I should refuse to answer every question about the National Coal Board nor that there should not be such an excellent discussion as we have had this evening.

What, then, should I answer? There again, if one turns to the Act one can see pretty clearly where the line is to be drawn. Under Section 3 of the Act:

"The Minister may, after consultation with the Board give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Board of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest, …"

That is one very definite power I have, and it would be perfectly appropriate for the Minister to be questioned about it. Indeed, it would be perfectly appropriate for any Member to ask me and expect a reply, and I should give a reply, why I had not made a direction on something on which he thought I ought to have made a direction. Similarly, if one continues with Section 3 one finds:

"In framing programmes of re-organisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Board shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister."

I am responsible for approving them. Therefore on that I can answer to the House and would be glad to do so. To my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, I would say that the Coal Board will no doubt be presenting to me fairly shortly their programmes of development under this Section, and an opportunity will no doubt arise for Questions to be put on that point. It may be that it can come up more satisfactorily on the discussion of their annual report. Then, again, there is a rather similar Subsection dealing with training, education and research where the Board must act on lines approved by myself. There, equally, it is clear that I must be responsible to the House.

May I next come to the question of accounts? Here there is a misconception in the minds of some hon. Members opposite. The money which the Coal Board uses to pay the salaries of, for example, its Divisional Boards and other Executives, wages and everything else, is not in the proper sense of the words, public money; it is simply the money which they use in the course of their trading activities, and it is not money voted by this House. If it were, certainly it would be appropriate that I should answer Questions on it, but it is not. All that has happened has been that the mines have been nationalised and compensation is being paid—by the way, if I may say so to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. E. Hughes) the compensation will be paid whatever happens to the National Coal Board. That is an obligation assumed by the Government, by the Treasury. It is, of course, entitled to recover from the Coal Board the service, interest and redemption of the capital involved—

If the assets have been purchased, and compensation is being paid, surely any income which derives from those assets is public property?

I am sorry, the hon. Member is not right. It is not public money in the Parliamentary sense of those words.

Where did it come from?

It comes from the sale of coal.

Coal is part of the assets.

Surely it is not public assistance from the coalowners.

It is, of course, the case that the Coal Board is required to publish its accounts and, indeed, I have the power to direct how those accounts shall be made up. I have to present them to the House, and will do so in due course. Naturally it is not for me to say when opportunities for discussing them can be made but, for my part, I shall be only too glad if an opportunity arises to explain them and answer questions on them. I can assure the House, as indeed my predecessor frequently assured hon. Members, that we shall see to it that the accounts are in a very full and proper manner. I would also add to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) that I was a little surprised at his statement, because when the increase in prices which occurred recently was announced, the Coal Board in fact published a very full account of the causes of the increase, and it is not fair to the Board to suggest otherwise.

But the Board did not give a statement of the cost of production of coal, and surely any private enterprise which raised the price of its commodity would give full details?

They gave a very full account of the reasons for the increase, in price, explaining that there had been an increase in costs and itemising the thing in great detail.

It is also of course quite clear that there may be opportunities from time to time for general discussions on the set-up of the Coal Board. We have had a brief discussion of this kind tonight. I should suppose that the most obvious occasion for a discussion of that sort would be when the annual report of the Coal Board is presented. That is not for me, but is the job of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I should certainly welcome that, and hope such an opportunity will occur. Then I should be glad to explain anything in the report and answer broadly for the success or failure, up to that date, of the National Coal Board. But even then I do not propose to go into matters of detail. It would not be possible to do so. As soon as I got drawn down that track, I should begin to treat the National Coal Board as the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and that I am determined not to do. It is contrary to Government policy, and to what was understood generally in the House. But of course my powers and duties in relation to the Board in no way detract from my duties under the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act. I have been referred to as the nation's coalman and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) referred to the friendly relations between the public and their coalman. I am not quite so optimistic as he was about that, but I will do my best to earn them.

May I turn to some of the criticisms of the National Coal Board, bearing in' mind the background of what I have said to the effect that I am not in a position to deal with points of detail. These criticisms concern, for instance, the number of jobs which have been filled. I think the hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned one or two others as well. There have been criticisms of bad industrial relations, and so on. I am not going to say that there is absolutely no substance in any of these criticisms; it would be a miracle if there were no substance in them. In an organisation of this kind one cannot expect that everything should run perfectly smoothly, and that there should not be a mistake here and there. We should need a most gigantic centralisation to prevent such mistakes. But I ask the House to remember certain things before they jump to conclusions.

First, as an hon. Member said, whoever had been appointed to these jobs, it is quite certain there would have been widespread complaints. No doubt some of these complaints are due to the very natural and human element of jealousy. After all, when Ministers are appointed someone is jealous. Therefore, as I say, we must discount a certain amount.

Secondly, the setting up of any new administrative machine is bound to bring its own problems. I can remember early in the war being in a new Ministry, which was only set up at the outbreak of war. I was one of the foundation members and I can assure the House that for the first three months there was complete chaos for the simple reason that we did not know who was responsible for what, either on the horizontal or on the vertical plane, what was the scope of each section, nor who was to make the final decisions. That is not an easy thing to lay down in black and white on paper but, it is the kind of thing one grows into.

Then we have to consider the background of the industry. Here we have an unfortunate record of industrial friction in the past. I am the last person in the world to want to go on talking about it; it is time we forgot it, but it is there. It was inevitable when the Coal Board appointed men who have been on the managerial side, no doubt doing their job very well from their own point of view, that some friction should continue. It is the job of the National Coal Board to weld managers and workers into a harmonious whole. That cannot be done all at once. I remember saying at this Box about a year ago that it would take time. I was laughed at, but I said that of course the men would be suspicious and that in some cases there may be reason for them to be suspicious. But what are the alternatives? We have to have people who are technically capable and reasonably trained, and most of them happen to have been employed on the managerial side in the past.

Then again far too much is heard of the bad side of the National Coal Board We do not hear of the bad side of any ordinary private enterprise company, because it does not get the same degree of publicity.

The profit and loss account shows that first.

Not nearly to the same extent. Naturally I am not proposing to give information about the Shell Oil Company or any other company—

They are rather efficient.

I do not deny it, and I am very glad they are.

Many of these complaints, as hon. Members have said, come from within the industry, from the workers themselves. But there is now set up in the industry a very complete and adequate consultative machine. The trade union leadership has rightly said, "This is something new which we have never had before, and we must work to make a success of it." I ask hon. Members who come across these complaints to tell those who complain to raise the matter on the consulta- tive committee, and if these committees are not working properly it is the job of the unions to put them right. I am quite certain that the National Coal Board are only too anxious to see the consultative committees made a success, and it is up to the men in the industry to make them a success.

I do not want to be at all provocative, but this criticism of the Coal Board is, to some extent at least, encouraged and fanned by interests which are very hostile to the success of nationalisation. I am not making any criticisms of hon. Members opposite, but it is a very strange thing that newspapers which hitherto have always tended to take the owners' side in industries not nationalised, should take the strikers' side in an unofficial dispute, and that makes one a little suspicious.

We must look at this thing as a whole. It is no good picking out bits here and there. We shall have an opportunity for debate in the future—

How long?

When the annual report comes out. I want to make it quite plain that I welcome the opportunity for a general Parliamentary discussion concerned with the major issues, but do not let us be continually sniping and snooping at matters of detail. It will not help the Board to be successful, but, if anything, will detract from its efficiency. I say to all sides of the House, this enterprise which has been described as an experiment, is certainly a great one in size and everything else. So far as I know it is unlike anything else that exists in any country in the world. An enormous amount depends upon whether or not the National Coal Board is successful in solving all these difficult problems. Do not let us be continually examining the roots to see whether the tree is really growing. It is not really a good thing for the tree, and it is not a very good thing for the National Coal Board. Let us give them their head and tell them to get on with the job. Let us keep an eye on them and discuss broad principles, but on matters of detail, let us leave them alone to make the best job they can of it.