House of Commons
Tuesday, July 27, 1948
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
Prayers
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]
Standing Orders (Private Business)
I beg to move, "That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made."
Schedule
Standing Order 39, page 118, line 20, after "Transport," insert "the Ministry of Food."
Standing Order 39, page 119, leave out from beginning of line 5, to end of line 18, and insert:
"(6) Of every Bill relating to any company, body or person carrying on business in—
(7) Of every Bill relating to any company, body or person carrying on business in—
(8) Of every Bill relating to any company, body or person carrying on business in the Sudan, at the Foreign Office."
Standing Order 217, page 215, leave out from beginning of line 8, to end of line 20, and insert:
"every Confirming Bill after having been read a second time and committed shall stand referred to the Committee of Selection, and be subject to the Standing Orders regulating the proceeding upon Private Bills so far as they are applicable; and the proceedings of the Committee to whom the Bill is referred by the Committee of Selection shall be subject to the Rules and Orders relating to Private Bills, so far as they are applicable; subject, however, to the following modifications:"
Standing Order 243, page 232, line 25, leave out from "within," to "shall," in line 28, and insert:
"a period of four days beginning—
Standing Order 243, page 232, line 31, leave out "three," and insert "four."
Appendix A, page 239, line 14, at end, insert:
"Where the Bill proposes to include a clause to the same effect as paragraph (4) of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, the following paragraph should be substituted for the last paragraph of the foregoing notice:
'We also beg to inform you that it is intended that the Act shall exclude section 92 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and shall substitute therefor a provision restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a house, building or manufactory to cases where the part can be taken without material detriment to the house, building or manufactory and restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a park or garden belonging to a house to cases where the part can be taken without seriously affecting the amenity or convenience of the house.'"
As the House knows, it is usual at the end of every Session to move certain Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business which experience or fresh legislation has rendered necessary. The majority of the Amendments before the House are purely drafting.
Could the Chairman of Ways and Means explain quite shortly what will be the effect of these Amendments on our future legislation. The Amendments take up a whole page of the Order Paper. Could he tell us exactly what is meant by the words in the last paragraph:
"… and shall substitute therefor a provision restricting the power of acquiring compulsorily a part only of a house, building or manu- factory to cases where the part can be taken without material detriment to the house.…"
As I have said, for the most part the Amendments are purely drafting. For example, the first Amendment introduces the Ministry of Food as an additional Ministry at which Private Bills are required to be deposited. The last Amendment is rendered necessary by reason of the passing of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. It produces an alternative and more appropriate form of
CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26)
Return ordered,
"respecting application of Standing Older No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1947–48 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:—
1 2 3 4 5 6 Date when Closure moved, and by whom Question before House or Committee when moved Whether in House for Committee Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against
and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—
1 2 3 4 5 Date when Closure moved, and by whom Question before Committee when moved Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against" [ The Deputy-Chairman. ]]
Private Bills and Private Business
Return ordered,
"of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1947–48;
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1947–48 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Com-
notice and in no way alters the law other than it is altered by the Act itself.
Question put, and agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 8
Return ordered,
"of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1947–48."[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
mittee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1947–48 have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which, each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
Public Bills
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1947–48 showing:
Public Petitions
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1947–48, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
Select Committees
Return ordered,
"of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1947–48, the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees."—[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
Sittings of the House and Business of Supply
Return ordered,
"of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1947–48 stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of Business; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings: and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
Standing Committees
Return ordered,
"for Session 1947–48 of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairman) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of Estimates considered by the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, the number of days on which each Committee sat and the titles of all Bills and Estimates considered, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered, the number of Members present on each of those days and, in the case of the Estimates, the number of days on which they were considered and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[ The Deputy-Chairman. ]
Oral Answers to Questions
National Insurance
Timber Fellers
asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that timber fellers are excluded from the Industrial Injuries Act because they are generally classed as self-employed persons; and whether, in view of the risks of injury and disablement involved in their work, he will seek to bring them within the scope of the Act.
My present information with regard to these workers is not sufficient to enable me to say whether I can exercise in their respect my very limited powers of extending the scope of the Industrial Injuries Act, but I shall be glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
Disabled Outworkers
asked the Minister of National Insurance if his attention has been drawn to the case of disabled people employed as outworkers who are now required to pay Class 2 contributions as self-employed persons; that these people were formerly classed as employed persons and paid considerably less; and if he will include disabled outworkers under Class 1 as employed persons.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 13th July to a Question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill). I should add that I am having inquiries made into the actual incidence of the new arrangements on these classes of workers.
Students
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will have prepared and circulated in schools and other educational institutions a short memorandum explaining, in simple terms, the respective effects of a student's making or not making voluntary contributions to the National Insurance scheme.
A leaflet (N.I.30) on the position of students under the National Insurance scheme has already been issued, and copies can be obtained at local offices of my Department. A revised version of the leaflet is now being prepared, and this will include an explanatory statement on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Claims (Medical Certificates)
asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he is taking to enable the notice of incapacity and claim to benefit certificate to be utilised for the friendly societies in order to prevent duplicate certification.
A note of the relevant particulars given on the medical certificate and other evidence submitted in support of a claim to National Insurance sickness benefit will, on request, be given to the claimant or sent to his friendly society or trade union. Arrangements for this purpose have been in operation for some time.
Has the Minister had contacts with the friendly societies and they agreed to the proposals he has made?
Yes. We had contacts and discussion with the friendly societies, and the arrangement which we are now carrying out is one reached with their full approval.
Widows' Pensions
asked the Minister of National Insurance why women who became widows before 5th July receive only 10s. weekly pension, whereas those widowed after 5th July are given 26s. a week; and will he remove this discrimination.
It is not the case that all widows pensioned before 5th July, 1948, receive pensions of 10s. a week only, or that all widows pensioned after that date receive pensions of 26s. a week. The position of widows pensioned before 5th July, 1948, was explained in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 8th June. Women widowed from 5th July onwards will be eligible, subject to the contribution conditions and according to their circumstances, for the various widowhood benefits of the new scheme which were settled recently after full debate in Parliament.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer makes it clear that there is a discrimination between those women who were widowed before 5th July and those who were widowed afterwards, and will he remove this discrimination, because it is already causing very great hardship?
We have made the new pension payable to widows who were widowed before 5th July, to widows who have a child or children under school-leaving age and to all other widows who are incapacitated, leaving only the able-bodied widows on the 10s. pension.
Does not that answer show that very little is required to put the two classes on a comparable basis, and will the Minister not do that, because the present position is quite indefensible?
I wish it were only a little that was required, because if that were so, I would have had it done. It does mean an increase in the contributions, and I have been very desirous of avoiding any increase in contributions until we see how the scheme works.
Can my right hon. Friend say what sum of money would be involved in granting the concession which was asked for by the hon. Member opposite?
I could not, without notice, give any precise figures, but I do know that it would mean an increase in the contributions.
Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not the case that a widow who was insured on her husband's contributions before 5th July, and has children of school age, automatically receives the 26s. rate, and that the same applies to women who were widowed after 5th July?
Yes, that is quite true. We have already made payments of the new pension to widows with children in nearly 120,000 cases.
Contributions
asked the Minister of National Insurance what check he is making to verify that all those persons who became liable to pay national insurance contributions for the first time on 5th July have, in fact, begun to do so.
I am confident that insured persons generally and employers will fulfil their obligations under the National Insurance scheme. All necessary steps will, of course, be taken to ensure compliance with the statutory contribution requirements of the scheme.
Does my right hon. Friend think that those who have so far failed to enter the scheme have done so from negligence, or has he any evidence to show that in any quarter there is any attempt to boycott the scheme?
No, I do not think there is any attempt to boycott the scheme. I would point out that all those to whom the scheme applies in all three classes are liable to pay contributions as from 5th July, and that the longer they leave it before they begin to pay, the larger becomes the amount of arrears which they will owe to the fund.
National Health Cards
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of the hardship caused to a considerable number of persons by their inability to apply for benefit because they have not yet received their National Health cards; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases which he has had brought to his notice, I will have inquiries made into them.
Former Relieving Officers
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that ex-relieving officers who have been absorbed as executive officers by the National Assistance Board are being retained as visiting officers in the locality in which they formerly functioned as relieving officers; and in view of the fact that this arrangement is not calculated to convince the public that the Poor Law has been brought to an end, if he will consider altering it.
asked the Minister of National Insurance to what extent former relieving officers now employed as executive officers under the National Assistance Board are normally working in the areas where they had previously functioned; and if he is satisfied that this is a desirable arrangement.
The precise number of officers of local authorities appointed to serve in a National Assistance office in the locality in which they were previously employed cannot be stated without special inquiry; but it would not have been practicable to recruit all the experienced staff required from local authorities to the Board had the possibility of such appointments been precluded. Every relieving officer appointed to a post under the Board is being given a course of training in his new duties and in the spirit in which he is expected to discharge them. I am sure that these officers can be relied on to carry out their duties in a kindly and humane manner.
While recognising the Minister's difficulties in this early stage of the working of the scheme, would he try to move away from the situation as fast as staffing considerations make it possible?
I am sure that the House will realise that I am under an obligation to provide employment for these persons. At the same time we have done our very best to urge upon them that this is a new scheme, shorn of the indignities of the Poor Law, and, to carry out the wishes of the House of Commons, there must be a new spirit in the administration. I am confident that the wishes of the House will be carried out.
Does my right hon. Friend consider that one week's training is sufficient to bridge the gap between the U.A.B. mind and the type of mind which we wish to have under this Act?
People's spirits have been changed in much less than a week or 10 days.
Does not the Minister realise that the Poor Law mind was rapidly being abolished by the local authorities, and that this is a stigma on many of the people who have served the local authorities in the past? Does he not think that in many cases these people would do much better service working in the localities which they understand than they would do if sent to other parts of the country to take up their work on entirely new ground?
I hope that my officials themselves will approach this matter in the new spirit. It is essential that our own officers should be taught to look upon the people in the spirit of the new Act and not in the spirit of the old one.
Part-Time Workers
asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will refer the question of the position of part-time and low-earnings workers under the National Insurance Act for further consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to him on 13th July. There has not yet been sufficient experience of the working of the Act and regulations in their present form to justify me in asking the National Insurance Advisory Committee to consider further at this stage the question of the position of part-time and low-earnings workers. It was only on 7th June that they signed their report dealing with this question. The matter will, however, be kept closely under review.
Tuberculosis (Treatment Allowances)
asked the Minister of National Insurance what are the number and amounts of the additions to allowances made by the National Assistance Board, under Schedule 6 of the National Assistance Act, on taking over, in the County of Middlesex, the tuberculosis treatment allowance cases.
The National Assistance Board are making inquiries from their offices in Middlesex, and I will communicate the results to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that there will be uniformity of practice, in view of the fact that, where there is merely the T.B. extra nourishment allowance, in some cases deductions are being made under the impression that this is necessary under the Sixth Schedule to the Act?
I think I had better await the result of the inquiry, and I would like to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend thereafter.
Appeals
asked the Minister of National Insurance why, by the National Assistance (Appeal Tribunals) Rules Confirmation Instrument, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1454), he has confirmed rules providing for tribunals to proceed with the hearing of appeals in the absence of the appellants and for the exclusion of the Press from the hearing of appeals.
These rules follow long-standing practice in these matters in the assistance and insurance schemes. They provide that the applicant shall be given reasonable opportunity of attending and of stating his case either personally or through a friend. It is only when he fails to appear without reasonble excuse that the tribunal can proceed to determine the case in his absence. The exclusion of the Press which extends also to the general public is in the interests of the applicants themselves when their intimate private affairs are under consideration.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the second part of my Question, is he prepared to consider the admission of the Press where the applicant so desires?
The Assistance Board will have to deal with all classes of very tragic people, afflicted in all sorts of ways, including mentally defective sons and daughters, and I do not think any good purpose would be served by admitting the Press to the hearing of these cases. This scheme has been working for a long time with the exclusion of the Press, and this system has protected the applicants from the publication of intimate details of their lives.
Employment
Vocational Training
asked the Minister of Labour how many men are now receiving vocational training in industrial works.
On 28th June, there were about 24,800 under special arrangements with my Department. Many more thousands are getting training outside any official arrangement, but I have no record of them.
In view of the small number of men in this scheme, would the Minister do his best to publicise it, because there are many employers who are unaware that there is such a scheme in existence, and it is a fact, as the Minister will agree, that many men are trained much better in industrial work than in Government vocational training classes?
I should be surprised if there are very many employers without knowledge of the scheme, but I will take note of what the hon. Member has said and will follow it up if necessary.
Could the Minister say how many of these people are studying for the building trades?
Not without notice, but I shall be glad to get the figures for the hon. Gentleman.
Essential Industries (Manpower)
asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has made to the Minister of Health with a view to stimulating special efforts in housebuilding in those areas where there is an acute shortage of labour in essential trades.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is fully aware of the housing needs in areas of acute labour shortage and is doing all in his power to ensure that new houses are built in those areas of the country where the need is greatest.
May I ask my right hon. Friend what priority is being given to such house building? Is the Minister aware that, in the announcement which he sent me last week, it is quite clear that, in certain localities in the country, there is a particular problem of the acute shortage of labour in essential industries, like coal mining and textiles, and will he say what particular priority is being given to stimulate house building in those areas?
I am not in a position to state precisely what I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to do, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Health is co-operating.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the serious manpower position in the essential industries of coalmining, textiles, and agriculture, he will call an immediate conference with representatives of these industries to consider what improvements in wages, conditions, industrial relations, housing, and other matters are urgently necessary in order to attract more workers, and to take action.
My Department is already in frequent consultation with the two sides of these and other industries on questions relating to manpower.
Is the Minister aware that in order to get the manning-up in the essential industries aimed at in the Economic Survey, he has to treble the rate of entrants that has been experienced in coalmining, textiles and agriculture in the first six months of this year, and what hopes does he hold out that he is going to achieve the manning-up of the essential trades which was set as a target in the full sense in the Economic Survey?
All I can say is that I am in regular contact with the industries concerned and am co-operating with them to meet their needs. Up to now we have not failed to meet their needs.
European Volunteer Workers
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that cases have recently arisen in which foreign workers in European Volunteer Workers' camps are using methylated spirits for drink purposes; and whether he will take steps to provide those in charge of these workers with some disciplinary powers to deal with such matters.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the complaints of drunkenness and bad conduct on the part of E.V.Ws.; and if he will give managers of the hostels where they are living powers to secure better discipline.
No such cases have been brought to my notice, and I am satisfied that there is no justification for any general charges of this nature. On the whole, their conduct has been exemplary.
Is the Minister aware that drinking the mixture made under this process results in blindness, madness or death; and is he further aware that, as a result, certain E.V.Ws. are going temporarily insane in these camps, and how does he propose to stop them?
I am not in a position to judge of the effects of this liquid—I have not tried it myself and do not intend to do so—but I do not accept the statement that there is any general indication of this. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into them. Our experience of these people is that their conduct has been most exemplary.
If I furnish the Minister with these particulars, will he give an undertaking that there will at no time, or in any way, be repercussions against the camp commandants concerned?
On the contrary, I would say that if a camp commandant were to draw people's attention to something bad that was going on in his camp, he should be commended, not punished.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied that all E.V.Ws. in this country are fully employed.
asked the Minister of Labour how many European Volunteer Workers have been admitted for work on the land; if he has any idea as to how many are still engaged in that occupation; what has happened to the balance; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the latter category.
The number of European Volunteer Workers who have been placed in agriculture is 26,192. Nearly all of these are still working on the land. E.V.Ws., whether placed in agriculture or in other essential work, cannot change their jobs without permission, and this is given only in exceptional circumstances. There is little or no unemployment amongst these foreign workers, but sometimes a certain amount of under-employment among workers on the land due to weather conditions.
Is the Minister quite satisfied that these people are earning the rations that they are eating in this country, let alone their pay?
I am quite satisfied that not only are they earning their rations, but they are making a considerable contribution to the rations of everybody else.
In answer to my question, is the Minister aware that it is estimated that 30 per cent of these people still cannot be traced, and is he satisfied that there is absolutely no danger that some of these 13,000 people might be forming a fifth column?
Whoever made that estimate must have been drinking some of the liquid to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, because when those figures were published in a certain newspaper, it completely forgot to mention the number employed in Scotland and those employed by individual farmers. I can assure the House that we can trace, and put our hands on, the overwhelming majority of these people.
Part-Time Workers
asked the Minister of Labour if he has any evidence to show to what extent employers are dismissing part-time workers since becoming liable to pay the full increased insurance contribution in respect of them.
No, Sir.
As there is a certain fear among crippled part-time workers, will my right hon. Friend watch the situation, and, if necessary, consult with the Minister of National Insurance with a view to a reduction in the contributions of such people?
It is no use taking up these questions on pure hypothesis. We have no information of this kind, but if anybody has such information, and will let me have it, I will deal with the matter promptly.
Polish Camp, Wansford
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that E.V.Ws., accommodated at Sibson Camp, Wansford, Hunts., have been taking growing crops from neighbouring farms without the consent of the farmers concerned; and what steps he is taking to preserve discipline in these camps.
I understand this hostel is not occupied by E.V.Ws. but by Poles. I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be in the interest of these Poles to educate them up to the standards of our own people with regard to growing crops, and that our own people do not take these crops? Will he please look carefully into this matter?
Until I get some information as to the incident complained of and whether these people are under my control, I cannot do anything in the matter, because it might be an agricultural workers' camp under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture. However, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars, I will see that the matter is examined
Questions
National Service (Apprentices)
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in the case of deferment from call-up of an apprentice, form N.S.294 is still applicable.
Yes. Sir, unless the apprentice was born before 1st January, 1929.
Scotland
History (Teaching)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many counties the teaching of Scots history forms part of the normal school curriculum; and which history books are recognised officially for this purpose.
In all education authority areas the history taught in the schools includes that of Scotland. It is not the practice to give official recognition to any particular text books, the choice of these in all subjects being left to the education authorities and their teachers.
Is British history since the Union also taught in Scottish schools?
Yes, all desirable information is given in Scottish schools.
School Pupils
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state to the nearest convenient date in 1948, the total numbers of transferred and non-transferred pupils on the roll of State-aided schools in Scotland with the corresponding numbers for 1939.
I assume that the question relates to the number of pupils attending Roman Catholic schools in relation to the total school population and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the form of a table.
Following is the information:
— At 31st July, 1939. At 31st July, 1947.* Total number of pupils 771,926 738,855 Roman Catholic pupils 128,030 127,336 Proportion of Roman Catholic pupils 16·6 per cent. 17·2 per cent. * 31st July, 1947 is the last convenient date for which the figures are available.
Housing
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will prepare a supplementary housing programme, which will permit of an extension of the quota of temporary houses, particularly when there are little prospects, for some time, of an increasing supply of permanent houses and the need for houses is still serious and urgent in Scotland.
The manufacture of all temporary houses to be provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, has been completed, and no extension of the programme is contemplated.
If the Minister will look at the figures for 1947–48 he will see that there has been a very serious decline in output per month. Will he not re-examine this question of temporary houses, recognising that the greatest social disease which we have in Scotland is the housing one, and that any possibility of increased production in the heavy industries is seriously injured and held back owing to the housing conditions of the people?
I take it that the decline in housing mentioned by my hon. Friend refers to temporary houses. I would point out that as temporary houses are declining, the output of permanent houses is going up. In one town alone we have completed within the first six months of this year twice as many houses as in the same period last year.
While it is true that there has been an increase in the number of permanent houses, the actual drop per month in a total of 4,000 is 1,500. Surely, that is a serious decline in housing accommodation, even if permanent housing is slightly up?
NUMBER OF HOUSES COMPLETED. Period. Traditional. Non-traditional. Total. Total. Average per year. Total. Average per year. Total. Average per year. 1.1.20 to 30.6.48 … 73,501 2,579 1,124 † 74,625 2,619 30.6.45 to 30.6.48* … 2,806 935 1,124 375 3,930 1,310 Post-war housing progress should also take account of temporary housing. Glasgow completed 2,488 temporary houses between 30th June, 1945 and 30th June, 1948. * Figures given from June, 1945, as being the nearest date to August, 1945, for which a Housing Return is available. † No non-traditional houses were erected before 1945. A yearly average for the period 1st January, 1920 to 30th June, 1948, would therefore have little significance.
I think my hon. Friend rather misunderstands the position. Instead of putting material into temporary houses, that material is going into permanent houses, which we think is the proper policy.
Will my right hon. Friend agree that the city which needs houses most was the one which limited its request for such houses to 2,500, and refused to have any more than that number?
Will the Minister again consider the first part of the Question which asks whether he will prepare a supplementary housing programme; and will he also consider in that programme making arrangements for Swedish houses to be imported to the mining areas?
We are importing the maximum number of timber and houses that we can, and are building the maximum number of houses that we can. As soon as more material and labour become available, we will certainly supplement what we are now doing.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to state the average number of permanent traditional and non-traditional houses built per year in Glasgow, since 1919 to the nearest convenient date; and the average number per year since August, 1945, to the same date.
As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
Ministry of Pensions
Disabled War Pensioners (Motor Cars)
asked the Minister of Pensions if he can give details of the recently announced scheme to provide free motor cars for certain disabled people.
I am glad to say that a scheme has been worked out in agreement with my Central Advisory Committee under which a limited number of small cars, not exceeding 1,500, will be made available over the next two years for supplying, free of charge, to certain classes of very seriously disabled war pensioners who may elect to receive a car in place of the motor propelled tricycle to which they are entitled under existing regulations. These classes consist of double leg amputees, of which at least one amputation is above the knee, paraplegics, and pensioners suffering from other disabilities resulting in the total, or almost total, loss of use of both legs. When the needs of these classes have been satisfied, any balance of cars available within the number stated will be distributed on as fair a basis as possible to other very seriously disabled war pensioners at present supplied with motor propelled tricycles to enable them to obtain or retain employment, and also to blind war pensioners who require a car for the same purpose.
The cars will remain the property of my Ministry and will be supplied under certain conditions and with proper safeguards in respect of the Department's liability as owners. The pensioner will be responsible for driving licence, garaging, repairs and maintenance and running costs, but will receive an annual grant from my Department towards the cost of these items. My Ministry will be responsible for payment of the road tax and comprehensive insurance.
While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask him, first, when will he issue full details of this scheme; secondly, whether the 1,500 cars are for one year or two years; and, thirdly, how many ex-Service men will get motor cars in addition to those who now have tricycles?
In reply to the last of those questions, which I remember most easily, it is difficult to say, because we do not know how many of those who have a tricycle at present will opt for a motor car. There may be many who prefer to have a tricycle because it gives greater mobility in certain cases. The figure of 1,500 relates to a period of two years, mainly because of difficulties of supply at a time when it is necessary to export as many cars as we possibly can. I hope the details of the scheme will receive some publicity tomorrow so that pensioners will be aware of them, but we shall be sending out letters to all the eligible classes. However, I must reiterate what I have already said, that the figure of 1,500 is spread over a considerable period and it will take time to meet all the requests which we shall undoubtedly receive.
Could the Minister say whether these vehicles are to be three-wheelers or four-wheelers; are they all to be made by one manufacturer or more than one manufacturer; and will they be properly tested on the roads before they are issued?
They will be four-wheeler cars of one of the well-known British makes. We have not yet entered into a contract with any manufacturer for these cars.
Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the introduction of this scheme will not hold up the issue of tricycles?
Yes. We are continually issuing the tricycles, and we are preparing a modification of the existing tricycle to make possible a means of protection from the weather.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the scheme will continue even at the expiration of the two years?
It is not certain that it is going to begin before then.
There may be a difference of opinion about that. I cannot commit a new Government which may be in office in two years' time—
We know the party opposite would not introduce such a scheme.
—but, surely, there should be no doubt whatever about such a scheme as this being continued.
When will the Minister be able to make an announcement about top priority and second priority classes?
The best procedure would be for these people to wait until they receive a letter from the Ministry.
The Minister has said that no contract has been entered into. Can he give any idea when the first of these cars is likely to be in use?
I hope very soon.
National Service Men
asked the Minister of Pensions when he will make an announcement regarding the eligibility for the award of disability pensions to men called up under the National Service Act, 1947, who sustain injuries whilst undergoing either whole-time or part-time training.
The provisions of the Royal Warrant and other instruments for disablement or death due to service in the 1939 world war will continue to apply to cases of disablement or death due to service—whether whole-time service or part-time training—up to the date to be declared as the end of the war for war pension purposes. After that date, broadly similar provisions will be made under instruments to be administered by my Department. The House will in due course be asked to pass legislation giving rights of appeal in peace-time cases similar to those provided for war-time cases under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943.
When are these regulations likely to be brought forward and discussed in the House?
I do not know when a proclamation will be made as to the official end of the second world war, but there will be time for discussion.
Will provision be made in these regulations so that anyone who is called up, passed as fit, and discharged with T.B. after a month or six months' or a year's service, will be eligible for a pension, instead of being told that his trouble did not arise from service in the Forces, as has so often been the case in the past?
The best possible provisions will be made and the code is now under consideration.
Disability Pensions
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of his order authorising an increase in miners' disability pensions on 2nd August next, it is his intention to increase ex-Service men's disability pensions as from that date.
asked the Minister of Pensions if, having regard to the terms of the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Order, 1948, he has any proposals to assimilate war pensions to the rates proposed to be paid under the said order.
I regret that I am not yet able to make a statement on this matter.
Does the Minister realise that he is expected to be much more forthcoming than that when this matter is debated on Thursday?
When does the Minister expect to make a statement on this important matter? Will the Goverment bear in mind that the fact that a big industry has felt these rates to be inadequate is good evidence that the soldiers' rates are inadequate?
I cannot add anything to the statement which I have made this afternoon.
Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman will not be in a position to make a statement in the course of the Debate on this matter on Thursday? When will this promised consideration to which he has referred produce something?
I cannot say any more than I have said already.
Personal Case
asked the Minister of Pensions why there has been so much delay in dealing with the claim of Mr. W. Walker, M.B.E., of 228, Wellington Street, Grimsby, since this case has been under his consideration since last October, and the tribunal papers in his possession since last March, as indicated in the correspondence sent to him.
A form of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal was sent to Mr. Walker in October last but he did not return it until 10th March. He then gave further details about an incident seven years previously to which he ascribed his disablement, and extensive inquiries were made in an endeavour to obtain additional evidence. I regret that these inquiries took longer than was anticipated, but they have now been completed and, in accordance with statutory requirements, the statement of case for the pensions appeal tribunal has been forwarded to Mr. Walker.
Could the hon. Gentleman get his staff to look at these appeal cases from the appellants' point of view and try to get something done more quickly? Even if a man is not exactly in the right, surely it is cruel to keep him so long without a reply or a decision.
This is by no means a typical example. The injury arose on a ship, and it was necessary in collecting evidence to approach no fewer than eight owners who had had this man in their employment during the period which elapsed since the injury.
How long are the pensions appeal tribunals now taking to dispose of their cases?
I could not say without notice.
Widows (Re-marriage Gratuity)
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the widow of a man killed in industry on or after 5th July, 1948, will be eligible for a re-marriage gratuity on the cessation of pension, he will make similar provision for certain classes of widow of the 1914 world war and for widows pensioned under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme.
I am pleased to say that in cases of re-marriage on or after 5th July, 1948, a widow in receipt of a pension under Articles 17, 17A or 17B of the 1914 War Pensions Instruments, or under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, will be eligible for a re-marriage gratuity equal to one year's pension at the rate in issue at the date of re-marriage. In addition, the provisions for re-marriage gratuities for other classes of widows of the 1914 war will be improved as from 5th July to provide that the gratuity shall be equal to a year's pension at the rate in payment at the date of re-marriage or in the case of the widow in receipt of alternative pension at the standard rate applicable to her case.
South African War Pensioners
asked the Minister of Pensions if pensions paid to persons disabled in the South African war are on the same rate and basis as those currently paid.
Where it is to the pensioner's advantage he is paid a disability pension at world war rates instead of the original pension given under provisions which took account of factors other than disablement. Where, however, the pension on the original basis is more favourable to him than re-assessment on world war rates by reference to present disablement, he retains his old rate, to which additions may be made under the Pensions (Increase) Warrants.
Are there not valuable allowances which have been made in respect of the most recent war and would it not be generous to apply all of them to the remaining very few veterans in this class?
We are always prepared, as the hon. Member knows, to look into individual cases. I am not quite certain of the point he raises, but I shall certainly be glad to look into any individual case he may bring to my notice.
British Army
Camp, Newark (Release)
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state when the Bowbridge Road Camp, Newark, will be vacated and thus made available for housing purposes.
The release of the part of the camp needed for housing is being hastened. I cannot yet say exactly when it can be released, but the local authority is being kept fully informed.
Is the Minister aware that the local authority were given to understand that this camp would be released on 15th August, that they publicised the fact and that all the people who are homeless rather expect that some accommodation will be made available to them? The Minister's answer will be most disappointing.
The information given to the hon. Member himself was that the camp would be released later this year. There was a meeting recently between the local authority and the headquarters of North Midland District to decide the details of the transfer of the parts of the camp needed for housing, and we shall do all we can to hasten this matter.
Ammunition Dumps, Nottinghamshire
asked the Secretary of State for War how many ammunition dumps still remain in Nottinghamshire; what is the total quantity of ammunition stored in them; and how much ammunition has been removed during the past twelve months.
There is one ammunition sub-depot in Nottinghamshire. The total quantity of ammunition now stored in this depot is approximately 103,000 tons. Some 26,500 tons have been removed during the past year.
Is the Minister aware that there are a lot of roadside ammunition dumps in Nottinghamshire? I was not talking about one particular sub-depot. What steps is he taking to remove, in particular, those which are on the verges of public roads?
They are being removed as fast as the supply of labour will allow. As soon as we are more certain about the labour available for what is, in some cases, rather difficult work, we shall be able to say more precisely when it will be finished.
Can the hon. Member say where the 26,000 tons which have been moved from Nottinghamshire have gone to?
That is another question.
Will the hon. Member say whether it has merely been removed to another place, dumped in the sea or blown up, or what?
I do not quite follow what the hon. Member means when he says "removed to another place." The essential point is that it is no longer an inconvenience to the public.
Would the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that, while the Secretary of State for War says that on security grounds it is impossible to give the disposition of troops, he can at this period state where ammunition dumps are and the extent of the ammunition, in them? What is the relevance between the two considerations? Is there no security involved in this matter?
Not in this question, I think.
Cadets (Grading)
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish details of the points system by which boys entering the Army are now given credit for service in the Cadet Force.
A grading scheme on a points system has recently been introduced for Army cadets. Points are given for activities which reflect intelligence, perseverance, keenness and knowledge. The scheme should help Cadet Force officers to keep the interest of cadets throughout the whole of their service; it should be particularly valuable for cadets between the ages of 16 and 18.
Will the Minister arrange for the particulars of this scheme to be circulated not only to schools but also to parents, so that all might realise the advantages of doing well in the Cadet Corps?
I will consider whether that can be done.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members have been pressing for a scheme of this kind for the past two years, and will he explain why there has been such a delay in introducing it?
There are a good many points to be considered before a scheme of this kind can be introduced—the question of what qualities we want particularly to reward, what particular weight should be given to each, and what is to follow from the allotting of points to a particular cadet. I think it would have been unwise to have done it with undue haste.
Why take two years?
Bailey Bridges
asked the Secretary of State for War how many Bailey bridges have been built by Royal Engineers in this country in the past three years as an exercise and at what places; and if he will consider providing these bridges at places where they are required.
No record is kept of all the occasions on which Bailey bridges are built and dismantled for the purpose of elementary training. As regards the last part of the Question, this is already done; many Bailey bridges have been built for the purpose of training at places where a bridge is also required for civilian use.
Does that answer mean that the authorities consider this a very useful exercise for the Royal Engineers, and if I bring to his attention the need for a Bailey bridge at Pilley, Cheltenham, will he consider providing one?
I will certainly consider it.
Troops, Derna (Conditions)
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British troops in Derna, M.E.L.F., only have a water supply for one hour by day and two hours by night, that the supplies of food and newspapers are inadequate, that Colonial allowance of 6d. a day has recently been stopped, and that cigarettes marked "Naafi Stores for H.M. Forces," are available at 3¾d. per 10 additional cost in local bazaars; and what steps he is taking to rectify this state of affairs.
Water had to be rationed in a barracks in Derna for about a fortnight during May until some plumbing work had been finished. The matter was then put right. As regards food, the normal Middle East ration scale is in issue. There was a shortage of newspapers during May, but this was made good at the beginning of June; daily and Sunday English newspapers are delivered by air on the same scale as in other parts of the Middle East. Local overseas allowance is no longer issued in Cyrenaica to single officers and other ranks or to married officers and other ranks unaccompanied by their families; it was withdrawn because a recent review indicated that those in these categories are not put to extra expense as compared with those serving in the United Kingdom; on the other hand the allowance has not been withdrawn from married officers and other ranks accompanied by their families, but has been increased. The sale of a small quantity of N.A.A.F.I, cigarettes in bazaars is being investigated.
While this House will sympathise with the troops in Derna over the shortage of water, will the Minister tell us what their air supply is like, and if it is anything like as bad as the air supply in this Chamber?
War Graves
asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities exist to enable the Imperial War Graves Commission to inspect and to maintain at a decent standard British War Graves in Yugoslavia, Roumania and Bulgaria.
In each of these countries the land for a central cemetery has been granted by the Government of the country, and the work of concentrating graves has been completed. The Imperial War Graves Commission are now preparing to send a representative to Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia to make arrangements for the erection of headstones and for permanent maintenance.
May I ask the Minister whether, after the concentration of the bodies in cemeteries has taken place, these Governments will give permission for resident cemetery attendants, as in other countries, so that the cemeteries can be kept in a proper order and so that the relatives, later on, we hope, may visit these graves?
I hope we shall be able to make arrangements of that kind. I shall be better able to say after the visit of the representative to whom I have referred.
May I ask whether in each particular case the representative of the Imperial War Graves Commission has actually received a visa?
The Roumanian Government, until recently, had refused a visa, but they have now granted one. Unfortunately, their decision to grant a visa coincided with the resignation from the service of the Commission of the person to whom the visa was granted. We do not expect, however, that that will cause more than a very trifling delay.
Questions
Territorial and Auxiliary Forces (Recruiting)
asked the Secretary of State for War when details will be announced of the main recruiting drive for the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces due to commence on 1st October, 1948.
Preparatory arrangements for the organisation and running of the recruiting campaign have been discussed and agreed with representatives of the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations, the Trades Union Congress, the British Employers' Confederation, the British Legion and representatives of all Home Commands. All these representatives are fully acquainted with the immediate steps to be taken. Local campaigns will be conducted in each county by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association. My right hon. Friend will in the course of the next few days be sending all hon. Members information in connection with the national campaign, and he hopes they will give their full support.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that up to now the county associations have received only very vague details? If this campaign is to be a success it is absolutely essential that there should be a clear and definite lead from the Government and so far there has been no intimation of the nature of that lead.
I think that, now the discussions to which I have referred have resulted in agreement about arrangements for the campaign, the local associations will receive all the information they require.
Would not a good way of publicising the work of the Territorial Army in Middlesex be for the Territorial association to release some of the property they now occupy and which is urgently needed for housing in that area?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was implied to the House by his right hon. Friend that a statement would be made, before we adjourned for the Summer Recess, on the whole subject of Territorial Army recruiting, and in view of the fact that the letter has been circulated, would the hon. Member consider its publication in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.
Before this recruiting drive takes place, will the hon. Member make every endeavour to obtain proper accommodation for the Territorials, in view of the fact that some unpatriotic local authorities are putting every obstacle in the way of their obtaining accommodation?
I was hoping to strike a reasonable balance between my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) on that matter.
Are the financial grants to Territorial associations sufficient to enable them to carry out a thorough campaign?
Yes, Sir.
National Finance
Sterling Loan, Japan
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far we have proceeded with the granting of a sterling loan to Japan; and how far will this be affected by Marshall Aid to this country.
The proposal referred to in my right hon. Friend's answer of 17th June was in general terms. My present expectation is that no final decision will be reached until more specific proposals have been received and considered by the commercial banks. The fact that we are receiving E.R.P. aid in U.S. dollars would not in itself affect the question of allowing a sterling loan to another country.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Marshall Aid to other countries, notably Italy and Southern Ireland, a most-favoured-nation clause is now being put in for Japan and accepted? Is he quite certain that no moneys from this sterling loan will in any way affect our exports to those countries?
There is nothing in our E.R.P. agreement which will affect commercial credits which are envisaged here.
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, before making any loan to Japan, the very considerable claims for commodities and goods which have been found in Japan and which were robbed from British territory during the war, and that proper reparations should be made for those before money is loaned to Japan?
We have that very much in mind.
And will the hon. Gentleman remember the interest on our past loans?
Purchase Tax (Gas Appliances)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the reduction of 33⅓ per cent. off gas heating space and fires, including gas fires, will come into practical effect.
This will vary from area to area according to the public demand for gas appliances, the stocks held by distributors on which tax was paid at a higher rate and the distributor's selling policy in regard to those stocks.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Brighton and Hove Gas Company have large stocks in hand at the moment on which they have paid tax, and that they have refused point blank to sell at the new rates until those have been sold? Can he not fix a date from which the ordinary clients can benefit?
The Purchase Tax is paid by the wholesaler, and there is, of course, a fixed date at which the change in tax takes place so far as he is concerned; but it is open to the retailer to choose what commodities to sell at what prices he thinks.
Defence Bonds (Repayments)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what basis of distinction the amount of Defence Bonds repaid at maturity is excluded from the total amount of Defence Bonds repaid, shown in the weekly statements issued by the National Savings Committee.
I have nothing to add to the answers my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 29th June last.
As on that occasion the Chancellor merely said that these repayments were clearly distinguishable, which was not answering the Question but begging it, will the right hon. Gentleman now endeavour to reply? Will he agree that if repayments at maturity had been included, the net deficit on national savings during the past three months would have been multiplied more than 10 times?
Of course, I would not agree with that figure, because I have not worked out the calculation. These Defence Bonds which are paid off on maturity never have been included in this return from the very beginning. Those who desire to see how many mature and are paid off can easily get the figure from the weekly Exchequer returns.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what the basis of the distinction is? He has not made that clear.
My right hon. and learned Friend not only answered the Question on the Order Paper, but he answered a supplementary question, and I have nothing to add to what he then said.
Income Tax
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that persons asking the Special Commissioners of Income Tax for repayment of amounts agreed several weeks earlier have been informed that as the Commissioners' office is being moved from North Wales to Surrey it is impossible to say when repayment may be expected; and whether he has any statement to make.
The office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax has just been moved from North Wales. The move unavoidably interfered to some extent with the progress of the work on repayment, but the arrears are now being overtaken.
Will the Financial Secretary say whether the sauce for the goose will be available for the gander—that is to say, will taxpayers who move house be allowed a few extra weeks in which to pay?
I do not quite see where the analogy comes in. What is quite obvious is that if a Department is moving from one location to another, files can hardly be worked, or typewriters.
Housing Loan, Meriden (Interest)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will further consider reducing the rate of interest from 3 per cent. to 2½ per cent. upon a 60-year housing loan of £90,000 to the Meriden Rural District Council, having regard to the fact that this loan was negotiated with the Public Works Loans Board at 2½ per cent. and would have been completed at that rate upon 2nd January but for an admitted error by the Board.
I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 18th June in the Debate on the Public Works Loans (No. 2) Bill.
As the mistake of the Public Works Loans Board will cost this council more than £20,000 over the life of the loan, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the Council?
A deputation has already been received. I cannot see that any good would come from a second deputation spending money in coming to London to discuss this further.
Deputations have been received at lower levels. I am asking whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary will receive a deputation from this Council in view of the very serious treatment they have received. May I have an answer?
National Production
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the basis on which his estimate that total national production is 11 per cent. above pre-war level was made.
Figures published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics (Table 23, June issue) show the average monthly volume of production in the first three months of this year to have been 21 per cent. above the monthly average for 1946. The London and Cambridge Economic Service has estimated that the level of production in 1938 was 9 per cent. above the 1946 level. By a combination of these two estimates it follows that production in the first quarter of 1948 was 11 per cent. above 1938.
In view of the fact that efforts have been made in certain quarters to belittle and to cast doubt upon these figures, can my hon. Friend see that these figures and their basis are published in Report to the Nation?
We shall publish the regular figures in the Monthly Digest of Statistics from next month.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House approximately what the rate of national production would have to be today to allow the same standard of living as we had before the war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'we'?"]—allowing for deterioration of the national position owing to the war?
I think that is another question, and a hypothetical one.
In view of this remarkably fine achievement of the British workers, is not the proposed intervention of American efficiency experts somewhat supererogatory?
European Co-operation Agreement
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement as to the amount, the rates and conditions of U.S. loans under the European Co-operation Agreement.
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) and New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 20th July.
Was that reply not merely to say he was not in a position to make a statement? Is it not surprising that, with the conversations that have been taking place with the E.R.P. authorities, this very important question should not have been regulated? Is it desirable that the House should disperse with questions like this unsettled?
As the negotiations on this point are not finished, we obviously cannot make public a statement of the results.
Will there be one during the next Session of Parliament?
I should anticipate that it would be somewhat before then.
Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear that the appointment of the Anglo-American Joint Industrial Council did not in any way arise out of any discussions on the conditions of a grant to help in the European Recovery Programme, and that members of that Council will not report to Mr. Hoffman, so that there can be no connection whatever between the grant of the loan and the work of the Council?
The appointment of this Council had nothing to do with the conditions whatever.
How can a loan agreement have been signed without the rate of interest having been previously decided?
Because, as the hon. and gallant Member will know if he has studied the agreement, there was no provision for the precise terms of the loan in the agreement.
Canadair Aircraft (Purchase)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the agreement come to with the Canadian Government for the payments of sums due for Canadair aircraft.
The dollars required for the purchase of the Canadair aircraft will be obtained by the sale of Canadian dollar securities owned by residents in the United Kingdom, which would otherwise have had to be used for repayment of the non-interest bearing loan made by Canada to this country in 1942. The Canadian Government have agreed that for the purpose of purchasing the Canadairs the repayment of the loan shall be postponed up to the amount in question. Before 1st January, 1951, the two Governments will discuss how they are to treat the service and repayment of any balance of the loan then outstanding. Therefore, the equivalent of the dollars paid for the aircraft will form part of the outstanding balance of the loan on 1st January, 1951, for discussion at that date.
Is not the hon. Gentleman alarmed at the way we are continually piling up dollar debts and not paying our own way?
We are not in this case piling up a dollar debt. We are postponing repayment of a debt which would otherwise have been met.
Would it not be a good thing if this discussion took place before the present Government go out of power?
Business of the House
Can the Leader of the House tell us of any changes in the Business for this week?
Yes, Sir. As certain conversations are proceeding with other Powers, it is considered that it would be difficult to hold a Debate on the international situation at this moment. The Opposition have been consulted and agree to this course. As full a statement as possible will, however, be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on Thursday relating to the situation.
The Business for tomorrow and Thursday will now be as follows:
Tomorrow—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on Education.
Thursday, 29th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on Service Pay until about 7 p.m.; and afterwards a Debate on Disability Pensions.
The Report from the Select Committee on the revision of the Standing Orders was made available yesterday afternoon. The Government hope that it will be agreeable to the House to consider the Report as the first item of Business tomorrow, and if, as we hope, the House approves, steps can be taken for the revised Standing Orders to be printed during the Recess and made available for us on our return.
As the Leader of the House will be aware, we hope that the statement will include some reference to the defence position on which we would like to have some information, and on which we have asked for information before, and about which we have at present no information.
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot fully anticipate the statement, but I will certainly convey that wish of the Opposition, and it will be the desire of the Foreign Secretary to make as full a statement as he can.
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Chancellor intends to make a statement about the information which we read in the newspapers this morning of the appointment of an Anglo-American Joint Committee? It seems to me that a statement ought to be made to this House on this subject at the earliest possible moment, and I hope that we can be assured that one will be made without delay tomorrow.
Quite frankly, I am not aware of the intention of the Chancellor on the point of making a statement, but I will convey to him the request made by the right hon. Gentleman.
I am sure that the Leader of the House can give us an assurance that a statement will be made tomorrow on a matter which is one of very wide concern.
I think that I can give that assurance.
May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether in view of the change of Business tomorrow, and in view of the fact that it is exempted Business, following the Education Debate, there will be any objection to raising such matters as the possible repatriation of displaced persons and so-called collaborators? If not, I wish to give notice that I intend to do so.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of private Members will be alarmed at the idea that we should separate for six weeks without an opportunity of giving voice to the anxiety of our constituents about the present international situation, and also about the apparent degeneration of Western Union into a series of military alliances; and can we not have some opportunity to debate these important matters before we separate?
I understand the point of view of my hon. Friend, but I do assure him that with all the knowledge which the Government has, it would be inconvenient and not in accordance with the public interest that we should have a general Debate on the international situation at this time, and I would ask him to be good enough to accept our assurance on this point.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that while the Government, on the foreign international situation, may not be able to communicate very much to the House of Commons, Members of the House of Commons may be able to communicate something useful in Debate to the Government?
Although, without doubt, the postponement of tomorrow's Debate is most convenient to the Government, is it really treating the House quite fairly? These are grave issues, and we were told last week that there was to be a Debate. Doubtless there have been conversations between the two Front Benches. Does that mean that during the next six weeks there will be negotiations between the two parties, who will be fully informed of what is going on, and that we shall not be informed and have no opportunity of giving our views?
My hon. Friend must not get it into his mind that this is merely a matter of studying the political convenience of the Government. It is a matter of public interest. The Opposition itself is also satisfied and has taken the view that in the public interest it is right that we should take this course. I do not think it is too much to ask my hon. Friend, in the circumstances, to accept the view of the Government that it would not be wise to have a Debate before the House rises.
Will the Leader of the House be good enough to tell us just how it can affect in any way the public interest if Members of this House express their opinions on the international situation, even while Government representatives are discussing this matter with other representatives; and how is it that we are always faced with a fait accompli such as this of America taking over possession of this country and running the industries of this country?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the outlook which he has put forward was put forward by the then Prime Minister while we were in the midst of fighting a terrific war, and that despite that, the House of Commons succeeded in asserting its right to debate great issues even at that time?
While accepting the postponement of the Debate, may I ask the Lord President whether it is quite clear that in the unfortunate event of material changes taking place in the foreign affairs situation, the House will be recalled during the Adjournment?
There is a definite provision in the Standing Orders whereby the House can be recalled by Mr. Speaker after considering the representations of His Majesty's Government, and if His Majesty's Government were convinced that such representations should be made, the House can be assured that we should not hesitate to make them.
They only call the House back when it is too late for the House to do anything.
In view of the concern that may be felt at the postponement of the Debate on the international situation, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the position has not deteriorated since he announced that the Debate was to take place?
I think that, if the hon. Gentleman would not mind, it would be better to await the Foreign Secretary's statement on Thursday.
Are we to take it that there are to be these continuous conversations with the Leader of the Opposition on these most important matters during the next six weeks?
My hon. Friend does not understand the constitutional position. The disposal of time on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is not within the gift of the Government, but of the Opposition, and it is still the case that if the Opposition want a Debate they can have it; but they, in their wisdom, have consulted with us, and have agreed that it should not take place. It is not the case that the Government can do what they like with this time; it is Opposition time and not Government time.
Is the right hon. Gentleman right in what he says? Surely, the time on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is at the disposal of the House and not merely at the disposal of the Opposition?
It is part of the process of Supply—I am open to correction if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am—that an Appropriation day, like a Supply Day, is at the disposal of the Opposition, and it is most important that the rights of any Opposition should be upheld in this respect.
Is it not the case that the rights of the Opposition are limited to choosing the first subject to be debated on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and that, having had their say and their discussion, it is open to any Member of the House to raise any subject that is in Order on an occasion which is exempted from the Standing Order about the rising of the House? There is unlimited time and unlimited scope for debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and may I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, whether it is just and fair to put the responsibility for the alteration of tomorrow's Debate on to the Opposition, when his own statement made it perfectly clear that they changed their minds at the request of the Government?
I am not putting responsibility on to the Opposition. It is perfectly true that the Government made representations to the Opposition; but the only responsibility on the Opposition is that after discussion they, in the public interest, concurred with the view the Government had represented to them. I agree that the primary responsibility is on His Majesty's Government, and that responsibility we accept.
rose —
We are now generating rather a lot of heat, and I think we had better get on to the next Business.
On a point of Order. Might we be guided by your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker? If, at the conclusion of the arranged Debate tomorrow, an hon. Member should succeed in catching your eye, would he be in Order in speaking on any subject of Government policy?
I think the hon. Member had better wait and see. I should not like to commit myself in advance. All I can say is that he would be in Order, but, of course, it might be that the House would think it was not desirable for a Debate to take place, and therefore, it might not be possible to carry on debating matters which are against the public interest.
Question of Privilege
I should like, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to bring to your notice two items appearing in newspapers today, and to ask for your Ruling whether or not they constitute a breach of Privilege. I raise this matter because on Wednesday of last week the Select Committee on Estimates laid on the Table of this House a Report concerning the use of petrol by Government Departments, and although that Report was laid last week it will not be printed and published for general knowledge by the public until about Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
The two newspapers concerned are "The Daily Telegraph" and the "Liverpool Daily Post," of today's date. On page 1 of "The Daily Telegraph" there is a small paragraph headed
"PETROL ECONOMY
By our Political Correspondent"
which reads:
"Criticism of lack of economy and control of petrol used by Government departments will be made in a report by the Select Committee on the Estimates shortly to be published. The Select Committee's interest in Government petrol has led to a rapid tightening up in most departments and the report will show substantial savings have already been made."
On page 2 of the "Liverpool Daily Post" in what is called the "London Letter" appears this paragraph:
"BEFORE AND AFTER
The report on petrol consumption by Government departments, which, as I said the other day is coming from the Select Committee on Estimates, will have an appendix showing, I am told, a striking contrast of figures. Each department's consumption will be given in two sets of figures, one before full checks on petrol consumption were introduced, the other afterwards."
The point at issue is the fact that that Report has been laid on the Table of the House but has not yet been published for the members of the public and the Press to read. I ask you, Sir, for your Ruling whether a breach of Privilege has been committed.
I am obliged to the hon. Member, who gave me notice that this question might be raised. Now, had the Report not been technically laid before the House—and it is technically laid before the House, because it has been presented to the Clerks and, therefore, sent to the printers—and had the Report not been sent to the printers, there would definitely have been a prima facie breach of Privilege. My predecessors have ruled that once a Report has gone to the printers it has technically been laid before the House, and a breach of Privilege does not exist. But—and here again I am in line with some of my predecessors—the fact must remain that it is a wholly undesirable principle that before hon. Members themselves have had a chance of reading what is in the Report of the Select Committee something should have taken place which ought not to have happened. I regret very much that some of the Report of this Select Committee should have been disclosed to the Press; and I also regret that that should have been printed in the Press. The articles are not breaches of Privilege, but they call for my displeasure.
Food Supplies (Agreement With New Zealand)
I am glad to be able to announce the conclusion of two agreements with New Zealand, one on dairy products and one meat.
Agreement has now been reached between the Government of the United Kingdom and the New Zealand Dairy Products Marketing Commission for the sale of butter and cheese to the United Kingdom for a period of seven years. In the season ending 31st July, 1949, New Zealand will send us not less than 97 per cent. of her exportable surplus of butter and cheese. Before the beginning of each production season we shall consult and agree upon the proportions of butter and cheese to be produced and the quantities to be reserved for sale to other countries during that season. In 1953 we shall discuss future arrangements, and in particular the desirability of further extending the period of the contract.
The prices for the 1948–49 season are to be:
By these two agreements we have given to New Zealand the firmest possible assurance of a market here for all she can send us during the next seven years of meat and dairy products, the production of which forms a vital part of New Zealand's economy. We have also assured her of prices which from year to year can fluctuate only between narrow limits. In return, New Zealand will undertake positive measures to bring about a substantial increase of exports of meat to this country during the period of the agreement, and I am confident that the stability of prices afforded to the dairy farmer will also result in increased exports to us. These agreements should be of mutual advantage to both countries for many years to come.
I am sure all quarters of the House will welcome the fact that New Zealand is so ready to come to our assistance in our troubles. There are two questions that I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he has told us the prices that we are to pay for dairy products, but he has not told us the prices which we are to pay for meat products. Could he inform us why that distinction has been made, and whether or not we are to learn the meat prices later on? Secondly, he has told us that it is hoped there will be a substantial increase in exports from New Zealand. Can he give us any information as to the quantities which he expects to get during the year which is starting, and how much New Zealand expects to step up its production during subsequent years?
On the question of prices the reason is that we have been able to agree with the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Dairy Products Marketing Commission on the publication of the cheese and butter prices, but not on the publication of the meat prices. That concerns the New Zealand Government, not the Dairy Commission, of course. On the second question, New Zealand exports of dairy products are going up steadily. In 1944, we had 106,000 tons of butter and 81,000 tons of cheese. This season—that is, the season ending in a year's time, the coming season—we hope to get 130,000 tons of butter and 85,000 tons of cheese. I should not like to make an estimate on years beyond that. On meat, again exports are going up very steadily, and the new contract is designed to raise them still further; they are already double pre-war, and we hope that they will go up still further.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an acute shortage of fencing wire in New Zealand, and that this has a definite bearing on the amount of food that country can send us? In view of this, will he do his utmost with the Ministry of Supply to help New Zealand in this direction and at the same time help ourselves?
Yes, Sir, I am well aware of this position, which is due to a nation-wide and, indeed, to a world-wide shortage of steel. We are doing our utmost to supply New Zealand with the maximum amount of wire we can give her.
Whilst welcoming this agreement and the other recent agreements, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a result of this agreement, he can extend some hope to the country of an increased butter ration in the immediate future?
We may always hope, and we have had a higher butter ration in the past 12 months than in the previous 12 months—we have had 4 ounces for a longer period. But New Zealand is not our only supplier, although she is our biggest supplier. Therefore, progress with other suppliers and in home production will also affect the position. But it is all to the good that we see in this agreement the possibility of increased New Zealand supplies.
Can the Minister draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the mountains of wire which are to be seen on the main line from London to South Wales?
We are doing our utmost with the Ministry of Supply to sell all Government surplus stores, and I think that the Ministry of Supply are well aware of the needs of New Zealand. If they have anything which will be useful to New Zealand they will be willing to send it, but I doubt whether these supplies are suitable.
How do the prices agreed with New Zealand compare with the Denmark prices; and has this arrangement been approved by the international organisation for allocating foodstuffs?
The answer to the first question is that they narrow the gap considerably between the two prices mentioned. The answer to the second part of the question is "No." We have never submitted to I.F.C., or thought of doing so, these agreements for purchases between ourselves and members of the Commonwealth, nor do the I.F.C. claim any powers to supervise or approve such arrangements. I can say, however, that there is nothing in such an arrangement to conflict with the principles of I.F.C. or F.A.O.; indeed, in making such agree- ments for increased production of foodstuffs we are carrying out to the letter the urgent representations of F.A.O.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the housewife is beginning to feel the long continued strain of trying to conduct the affairs of the home on this meat ration of 10d. and with the little piece of cheese which is suitable for putting into a mouse trap? Will my right hon. Friend give any promise of a quicker increase in the meat, cheese or butter ration, and if not, will he promise to get as many more of these agreements as he possibly can, because actually our patience is getting frayed a bit?
It is just because we regard the meat and fat rations as so essential that we are making these agreements.
On the point of stepping up food supplies by the supply of materials and equipment to New Zealand, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that opinion in New Zealand is practically unanimous to the effect that the Treasury will not allow the New Zealand Government to call upon their blocked sterling balances to make the necessary purchases they must have for their farms, and will he look into this?
I am glad that the hon. Member has raised this point, because if there is any misapprehension on this, the position is that New Zealand has ample purchasing power in this country and it is simply that we have not got the quantities of goods she would like to purchase. New Zealand would buy very much larger quantities of wire, and there is plenty of sterling to buy it, but I deny at once that there is any limiting factor—the only limiting factor is the amount of wire we have to sell.
Bearing in mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) prefaced his question by saying that Members in all parts of the House would welcome this evidence of New Zealand's willingness to assist us in our difficult situation, is my right hon. Friend aware that all Members of the House who really value Commonwealth ties will welcome this evidence of the Government's willingness to assist, in developing New Zealand's agriculture?
Can my right hon. Friend say how the figure of 97 per cent. exportable surplus under the new agreement compares with the proportion previously received, and how the new prices compare with those being paid today?
The answer to the first part of the question is "Very much the same," and the answer to the second part is that they are an increase.
Business of the House (Supply)
Ordered:
"That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten
o'clock; and that if the first Two Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply of 22nd July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 14."—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 108.
Division No. 277.] AYES. [3.58 p.m. Acland, Sir Richard Dobbie, W. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Adams, Richard (Balham) Dodds, N. N Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Dumpleton, C. W Keenan, W. Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Durbin, E. F. M Kenyon, C. Attewell, H. C Dye, S. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Awbery, S. S. Edelman, M. King, E. M. Ayles, W. H. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Edwards, John (Blackburn) Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D Bacon, Miss A Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Balfour, A. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Lee, F. (Hulme) Barstow, P. G Evans, John (Ogmore) Leonard, W. Barton, C. Evans, S. N (Wednesbury) Levy, B. W. Battley, J R. Ewart, R. Lewis, T (Southampton) Bechervaise, A E Fairhurst, F. Lipson, D. L. Belcher, J. W. Farthing, W. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J Fernyhough, E. Logan, D. G. Benson, G. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Lyne, A. W. Berry, H. Foot, M. M. McAdam, W. Beswick, F. Forman, J. C. McAllister, G. Binns, J. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McEntee, V. La T. Blackburn, A. R. Freeman, Peter (Newport) McGhee, H. G. Blenkinsop, A. Gallacher, W Mack, J. D Bottomley, A. G. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) McLeavy, F. Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl Exch'ge) Gilzean, A. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mainwaring, W. H. Brook, D. (Halifax) Goodrich, H E Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood) Mallalieu, J P. W (Huddersfield) Brown, T. J. (Ince) Grey, C. F Mann, Mrs. J. Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T Griffiths, W D (Moss Side) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Burden, T. W. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Marquand, H. A. Burke, W. A. Gunter, R. J. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Byers, Frank Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil Mollish, R. J. Carmichael, James Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R Middleton, Mrs. L Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hannan, W (Maryhill) Mikardo, Ian Chamberlain, R. A Hardy, E A Mitchison, G. R Champion, A. J. Harrison, J. Monslow, W Chater, D. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Chetwynd, G. R. Herbison, Miss M. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Cluse, W. S. Hewitson, Capt. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.) Cobb, F. A. Hobson, C. R. Mort, D. L. Cocks, F. S. Holman, P. Moyle, A. Collindridge, F Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Naylor, T. E. Collins, V. J. Hoy, J. Neal, H. (Clay Cross) Colman, Miss G. M. Hubbard, T. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Cook, T. F. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Noel-Baker, Capt F. E (Brentford, N.) Corlett, Dr. J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Oliver, G. H. Cove, W. G. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W) Orbach, M. Crawley, A Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Paton, J. (Norwich) Daggar, G. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Pearson, A. Daines, P Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Perrins, W. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Irvine, A. J (Liverpool) Piratin, P Davies, Edward (Burslem) Janner, B. Platts-Mills, J. F. F Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Popplewell, E. Davies, R. J (Westhoughton) Jenkins, R H. Porter, E. (Warrington) Dolargy, H. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Price, M. Philips Snow, J. W Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Proctor, W T Sorensen, R. W Warbey, W. N. Pryde, D. J Stokes, R. R. Watkins, T. E. Ranger, J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Watson, W M Rankin, J. Summerskill, Dr. Edith Weitzman, D. Reid, T (Swindon) Swingler, S. Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Rhodes, H. Symonds, A. L Weds, W. T. (Walsall) Richards, R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Whiteley, Rt. Hon W Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Wilkes, L. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Thomas, I O (Wrekin) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Scollan, T Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Segal, Dr S. Thurtle, Ernest Williams, R. W. (Wigan) Shackleton, E A. A Timmons, J Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) Sharp, Granville Titterington, M F Williams, W. R. (Heston) Silverman, J (Erdington) Tolley, L. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Ungoed-Thomas, L. Woods, G. S Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Vernon, Maj W. F. Wyatt, W. Skinnard, F W. Viant, S. P. Yates, V. F Smith, C (Colchester) Wadsworth, G Young, Sir R. (Newton) Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Walkden, E. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Walker, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins. NOES Amory, D Heathcoat Gammans, L. D. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cir'cester) Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Scot. Univ) Glyn, Sir R. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Noble, Comdr. A. H P Baldwin, A E Grimston, R V Odey, G W. Barlow, Sir J Hannon, Sir P (Moseley) Orr-Ewing, I. L Beechman, N. A Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Osborne, C. Birch, Nigel Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Boles, Lt -Col D C (Wells) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Peto, Brig. C. H. M Bossom, A C Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwer) Pickthorn, K. Boyd-Carpenter, J A Hurd, A. Ponsonby, Col. C E. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Price-White, Lt.-Col. D Bullock, Capt. M. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Butler, Rt Hn. R A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lambert, Hon. G. Ramsay, Maj. S. Carson, E Lancaster, Col. C. G Rayner, Brig. R. Challen, C Langford-Holt, J. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead) Channon, H. Legge-Bourke, Maj E A H Renton, D. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Conant, Maj R. J E Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O. Scott, Lord W. Corbet, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow) MacAndrew, Col. Sir C Shephard, S (Newark) Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C. McCallum, Maj. D. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McCorquodale, Rt Hon. M S. Stanley, Rt Hon. O Cuthbert, W N. Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight) Stoddart-Scott, Col M Darling Sir W Y McFarlane, C. S. Sutcliffe, H De la Bère, R. Mackeson, Brig H. R Teeling, William Digby, S W Maclay, Hon. J. S. Thorp, Brigadier R. A F Dodds-Parker, A D MacLeod, J. Touche, G C. Drayson, G B Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley) Turton, R H. Drewe, C Macpherson, N (Dumfries) Wakefield, Sir W. W. Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond) Maitland, Comdr. J W. Williams, C. (Torquay) Duthie, W S Manningham-Buller, R E Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Eden, Rt Hon A. Marlowe, A A H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Elliot, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Walter Marsden, Capt A Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick) Erroll, F J. Marshall, D (Bodmin) Fletcher W. (Bury) Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Fox, Sir G Mellor, Sir J. Commander Agnew and Mr. Studdholme. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Orders of the Day
Supply
[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]
REPORT [22nd July]
Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments and Supplementary Estimate, 1948–49; Ministry of Defence, Navy, Army, and Air Estimates, 1948–49
Resolution reported:
"That a sum not exceeding £104,497,903, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Rural Water Supplies for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:
£ Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Health 57,452,720 Class V, Vote 13, Department of Health for Scotland 8,181,010 Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) 36,341,010 Class VI, Vote 18, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research 2,523,163 £104,497,903"
Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Rural Water Supplies
4.6 p.m.
This is a subject which has not been very much considered by the House or the Committee recently, but which is of first-class importance to those who dwell in rural villages, to farmers and farm workers, and particularly to housewives and others, many of whom are to this day without a proper water supply. I have also noticed that this subject has not been very much ventilated by Question and answer, and I shall try to show that some of the information given to us by the Minister is somewhat conflicting. I should think that this is an ideal subject for the Opposition to raise for a few hours in the first part of our discussion today so that we may obtain better information, urge the Government to more definite action and produce some results for the countryside.
I should like to deal, first, with two aspects of this question—rural water supply to country dwellings and the needs of farming in certain specific respects. Looking at the matter as a whole, the legislative provision is fairly complete and, like so many other benefits which have been conferred on mankind, this legislation was completed by the late Coalition Government. It is rather interesting to note that just as the Coalition Government gave legislative framework to this question, so they did to the question which we shall be discussing tomorrow—education. This is typical of many other matters in the social field, which I should be out of Order in pursuing now.
The Acts of 1944 and 1945, slightly amended in detail by the Act of 1947, taken with the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, provide the necessary framework within which administrative action can be taken. I make only this exception, and that is that I am not quite clear that the position of isolated farms and dwellings is sufficiently covered and that in administrative procedure certain sections of agriculture, such as horticulture, pig keeping, and so on, do not appear to be adequately covered. With those possible exceptions we have the tools, and the question is whether the Government have the spirit, consistent with our present labour and material difficulties, to carry out the jobs which so urgently need doing by encouraging the various types of undertaking concerned?
I am sure their neither I nor my hon. Friends would be greatly impressed by any criticism of the actual legislative provisions, because I understand that even if certain aspects of the Acts may appear to introduce cumbersome machinery, that machinery was in nearly every case designed to preserve the liberty of the subject and to give opportunity for inquiry. Nevertheless, if there are difficulties it should have been possible for greater progress to be made in general than has been made to date.
I should briefly like to say something first about the need. Before the war there was a certain amount of progress. Under an Act of 1934 no fewer than 2,257 parishes spent £6 million on water schemes, and by June, 1939, of the 11,186 parishes only 3,423 were left without piped water. In other words, some 30 per cent. of the rural population was left in need. There were, it is true, some villages wanting drainage schemes, and these amounted to something like 5,186, but those of us who have been involved in this subject know that it takes ten times as much to provide a drainage scheme as it does to provide the original water scheme.
There was an extremely good survey which many of us have known and studied and to which we have paid tribute—that of the Women's Institute. They issued it in 1944 and they came to very much the same conclusion as I have come to in the potted statistics I have just given. The Women's Institute inquiry drew attention to the terrible difficulties which many of us know in the countryside. It is a fact that many of those who live in the countryside have actually to go to holes or drains for water and it has to be carried in cars over long distances through country lanes after days of toil and labour. There are still many farms and particularly private dwellings where intense toil is entailed and where the housewife has an extremely difficult task owing to water supplies not being available.
Having given this very short account of the need and of the very considerable attempt at progress made before the last war, we come now to the Water Act passed under the last Government and the difficulties with which we are faced today. Of course there are obvious difficulties. The post-war period, the soaring costs of materials and everything else, the availability of labour—a question which I want to put later on—the extent of the exporting of steel and pipes which are used in rural water supplies, the lack of priority for rural supplies, the non-inclusion of such supplies in the Prime Minister's list and the alleged deficiency in many of the country districts, are all problems which have a bearing on this matter. I am quite aware of these difficulties and shall take account of them in what I say.
In passing, I should like to say that there are certain schemes which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree are making progress, and it is not desirable in connection with those schemes to criticise either the local council or His Majesty's administration. I should like to make particular reference to one scheme, that of the Halstead Rural District Council, which is designed to cover 34 parishes in Northern Essex at a cost of £455,000. It has been decided to send this scheme forward, but there is considerable local anxiety about the delay. I can safely say that the delay has been due to technical difficulties, and we look forward to the help and cooperation of the Minister when the time comes for the scheme to be approved.
This is typical of some of the other schemes in that it was a scheme launched before the last war. This was not proceeded with by the council in view of the great cost at that time as they thought. Before the war I myself was very sorry when that decision was taken, because this is an area of England which is perhaps as much in need of water as any other. It is an arable district, and to find that 34 parishes are still without a piped supply is a very serious thing. I will simply leave this matter now by bringing it to the attention of the Minister when the time comes for the requisite approval to be given, but I should like to encourage him and all local authorities in that kind of work.
I want to come to the position of the farmers. The Minister of Agriculture is a better advocate of these matters than I am and I leave him, as so often is the case, to fight his own colleagues in the Government for the sort of treatment he needs and deserves, though I should like to encourage him. He made a speech recently—of which for greater accuracy I have obtained a full copy—to the Rural District Councils Association at Scarborough, and he said this:
I did not say that.
—but we shall hold up his hands and let him strike the water from the rock. The Minister proceeded to give some account of the needs of agriculture and in particular the needs of cows. From my own meagre knowledge I can supplement some of the information given by the Minister to the Conference at Scarborough. For every gallon of milk some two to five gallons of water are necessary. It may well be the case that something from 15 to 20 gallons of water are necessary for cleaning purposes in the sheds, and it is not impossible that in a dairy herd something like 30 to 40 gallons are necessary for every cow.
If that be the position and if, as we believe, the Minister desires to bring the milk production figures up to what we have outlined in the Agriculture Charter, it will be necessary for greater supplies of water to be available than there are at present. This is a matter of first-class priority. In the farm survey of 1944, only 47 per cent. of farm buildings had a piped supply and under 37 per cent. of agricultural holdings have piped water. There are some 42,000 holdings with no piped water at all, and one in five holdings in the country are subject to a severe shortage. I should have thought that those branches of agriculture, as paying as any other—pigs, for example—are vital to us at the present time.
In horticulture we lag behind France and Holland in what is being done in the matter of water supply, which I have investigated; and certainly we lag behind America. If our horticulture is to catch up, it is essential that we should freshen up our horticultural production with a greater supply of water. I, therefore, ask the Minister to extend the provisions of the Act by administrative order to cover those aspects of agricultural production.
I have summarised as briefly as I can the need and the advance which the Minister might make. I want to examine what a very little way the Government have gone in settling this problem. I have here the rare collection of answers given by the Minister of Health on this subject. Those answers are almost collectors' pieces. There was one on 4th November, 1947, and another on 27th May, 1948. Taking the first answer, it would appear that some 547 schemes, totalling in cost £15,960,347, have been considered and are under consideration. This programme—because it is only a programme—would appear to cover three quarters of the parishes I mentioned earlier as still without water. We then come to the statement of 27th May, 1948. Here, the total appears to have jumped—I would like to be checked by the Minister here—to £23,457,000 in that comparatively short time, and to cover 3,052 parishes, presumably out of the 4,323 which are without supplies, and to which I referred earlier.
Is that not the increase in the estimated cost?
It might be, and that is precisely the kind of point which I want to elicit from the Minister when he replies. The figures are not at all clear, and we have had few figures given us. It looks, at any rate, as if the number of parishes has increased.
As to the number of schemes completed, if we take the first answer of 4th November, 1947, it would appear that only two schemes were completed at that date, costing only £6,640, out of a possible £23 million or £16 million, whichever figure appears to be correct. If we look at the figure of 27th May, it appears that 350 completed schemes can be recorded. This is the first protest I must make on this method of putting forward information. It appears that the expression "completed scheme" used by the Minister in an oral answer on 27th May, is misleading. I do not believe it means a scheme actually in operation but only that the scheme itself has been completed. My latest information which I have been able to collect is that only 26 schemes have been authorised for tender, at a total cost of under £1 million, the exact figure being £958,849. That is out of the immense total of 457 schemes, which might be a few more under the 27th May total.
Therefore, there are only 26 schemes authorised for tender, to cover 65 parishes out of about 3,000 parishes. If that be the case it will show the House why the Opposition consider that a little push and drive on the part of the Government are necessary. A total of £1 million out of a possible £16 million or £23 million, according to whichever figure be correct, is a miserable result to have achieved so far, despite the difficulties which I outlined earlier in my remarks. We therefore ask not only for more accurate returns from the Government but for a little less dilatoriness and muddle, and a little less difficulty for local authorities in obtaining approval of their schemes.
For example, I have a scheme here, the Chute water scheme, which was submitted to the Minister on 17th May, 1945. It was not until 4th December, 1947, that a public inquiry was held. The scheme was finally approved—which is another technical term which does not appear to mean authorising tenders—on 29th January, 1948. Further delay occurred until immediately before this Debate, when the hon. Member concerned informed me that the scheme has at last been approved. This is typical of the delay which has been taking place in the Ministry and which shows the absolute need for a further push on the part of the Government if our rural districts are to get the water supplies which they need for farms or dwellings.
I should now like to put a few direct questions to the Minister. Why has the Central Water Advisory Committee not met since February? That is a definite indication of a lack of interest in the matter. Why have the joint advisory water committees, provided for under the Water Act, not been appointed? It is true that in his answer of November, 1947, the Minister said that he preferred this work to be done by his officials, but that is not good enough. There was deliberate provision for the appointment of these joint committees for the purpose of assisting in meeting the difficulties of amalgamation and other difficulties which the Minister is facing. It appears to me that there has been great slackness in these two matters.
The position is further complicated by the grant position as I see it at the present time. Since the recent Local Government Act there appears to have been a distinct difference in the amounts which local authorities, especially the poorer rural district councils, are likely to get. In one of the many discrepant statements which I have been studying about water supplies, the Minister speaks about providing one-third of the total cost. We were told during the passage of the recent Local Government Act that its object was to equalise rateable value. The difficulty seems to be that, while aiming at equalising rateable value, the Act is not succeeding in equalising costs per head.
It is well known that in rural areas, owing to the distance and the non-availability of materials or labour, costs are heavier than they are in a more centralised place. I will only tell the Minister that in the case of the Nidderdale Council, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, there was a provisional grant of £15,000. They were informed by the Minister of Health on 12th June, 1948, that, having regard to the Local Government Act, 1948, it had been decided to reduce that allocation to £4,500. The difference is a very bid one for a comparatively small council. It was upon the strength of the original promise that a third of the schemes for this area was actually put under construction.
Therefore, we are not only seeing dilatoriness, as we think, at the centre, but we are beginning to get information from local councils that, under the operation of this much-boasted Local Government Act, rural district councils are suffering. I have deliberately given the Minister instances, and if I am wrong, I shall be glad if he will tell us what the grant position is in regard to rural councils.
Does the right hon. Gentleman's information—I want to get a complete picture—include the change in the rate to be levied as a result of the grant changes in the recent Act?
I have not got that information with me, but I can certainly obtain it and pass it to the hon. Gentleman before he replies so that he can then give as full a reply as possible. I want to raise these subjects in order that we shall not have despondency and despair in the rural districts and so that the rural districts can proceed with the water schemes to the best of their ability.
I have detained the House long enough in opening this subject, and we have little time available for discussing it. However, I want to add as an extra question: Can the Minister give us any indication of the sort of priority within the Ministry itself of rural water supply schemes? They are not on the Prime Minister's list. Where do they come, in regard to steel and other materials, in regard to housing and the general allocation of the Ministry itself? Can the hon. Gentleman also give us any information about the export position of pipes, steel, pumping machines and other necessary accessories to the happy introduction and the immediate production of further schemes?
I have endeavoured in the short time at my disposal, first of all to give a picture of the need in the country districts. I have shown what a human question this is and how vitally necessary it is if the social conditions of the countryside are to approximate to those of the towns. All of us here as rural Members, whatever our politics and whatever our party, are determined to try to see that rural conditions not only approximate to the best in the towns but provide an even fuller life than can be found in the towns. I believe this is impossible without water. I believe that water is more important than anything. It is even better to have an indifferent roof over one's head—provided it does not let in the water—and have water laid on, than to have a smart new cottage such as the Women's Institute drew attention to in some areas where there is no water supply. I believe that the wife and the mother depend more on water today than anything else.
If that be the case, it is necessary to have a little more drive, particularly in view of the figure I gave of only just under £1 million, being the total of the schemes covering only 65 parishes which have got as far as having the tenders authorised or are anything like under way. If that be the position, we must ask that if possible, there should be a higher priority for rural water schemes.
I also drew attention to the needs of farming and attempted in a few words to indicate that in the case of pig production, horticultural production particularly, and poultry it would be very valuable if under administrative order the Minister could extend piped water to such holdings. I have not gone as high as the target of the Minister, that we should have piped water in every field, because that will take some time, but if the Minister can work for it, all the more strength to him and we shall be glad to see him sucessful in that. Nevertheless, let us support agricultural production by providing the water supplies.
It seems that it will be said that it is very difficult to make speed with large schemes and amalgamated schemes. Could we not put it to the Government that if they cannot make an immediately sucessful scheme on a very large and wide basis, perhaps with a combination of a rural district and an urban district or a city, could they not authorise rather smaller schemes? For Wales, for example, such smaller schemes would be vitally important. Under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, it was possible for a scheme to cover two cottages provided the cost was over £100. It is typical of this Government that because a scheme is a small one and will help the small men, they are not willing to undertake it. They have not reintroduced the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and it is due to the collapse of that Act that some isolated water schemes cannot be proceeded with.
Do not let the Government attempt to be centrally efficient for large schemes because, first, I fear they will not succeed in that task, and, second, I believe they are going the wrong way about things. Let them be modest. Let them encourage small schemes in reasonable areas and I believe they will make much greater progress than they have made hitherto. I, therefore, have pleasure in introducing this subject and trust that we shall get a coherent and interesting reply from the hon. Gentleman.
4.35 p.m.
In making his speech the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) really stood up in the position of Satan rebuking sin because he seemed to forget the years of neglect of this subject before the war. While we all agree that there is a very long way to go in rural water supplies, we are apt to engage, as Britishers, in decrying our present position. That is typically British and it is an attitude which is misunderstood by many foreigners because they take it that we are not earnest in what we say. This country is better off for water supplies than any other country on earth. In America there are 40 million people without a piped water supply. We are even better off than that much watered land, Holland. The Ministry of Health census for 1943 revealed that 30 per cent. of the houses in rural areas were without a water supply—700,000 out of 2,100,000. The ironical thing is that of that 700,000, 150,000 are within one mile of water mains. The House will agree that it is both tragic and ironical that it should be so.
The hon. Member has made a statement that this country is better supplied with water than any country on earth. Is he aware that small countries like Switzerland and Norway have an infinitely better supply in their rural areas than we have?
I was thinking of the country as a whole. As the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) has challenged me, I will give a few figures. About half the population of France is without a piped water supply. While I agree that the rural portions of Scandinavia are very well supplied, taking the countries as a whole they are not as well supplied as this country. When I speak as.an hon. Member of this House I speak as an hon. Member and not for any industry, and I should like to say that it is a fact that the water undertakers of this country, four-fifths of which are municipal supplies, are anxious to do this job. However, the problem is not without a certain amount of difficulty. I have become quite used to that phrase. A legal officer attached to a department at the County Hall for which I used to be responsible always said of anything which was a trifle out of the way, "It is not without a certain amount of difficulty." We can agree that the rural water supply situation of this country is certainly not without a certain amount of difficulty.
One difficulty is the rate situation. I suggest that the system of rating of water undertakings should be overhauled. For instance, 90 per cent. of the capital cost would be on distribution, whereas only 10 per cent. would be on the plant. That 90 per cent. of the capital cost spent on distribution would be fairly heavily rated, and that adds to the cost. When we remember that prior to the war it did not pay in £ s. d. to supply water to any house in this country rated £20 or under—in other words, the burden of that had to be borne by other rateable property—still less does it pay to supply rural cottages which are rated much under £20. However, as the right hon. Gentleman truly said, it is essential to see that all houses built, whether in rural areas or elsewhere, are piped for supply, even though a supply is not available, so that they can be linked up when the supply is available. Mr. George W. Curtis, County Sanitary Officer for Norfolk, in a paper read at St. Pancras Town Hall on 16th June, said:
An example of that attitude is the fact that when there was allocation of fuel during the fuel crisis for various bodies and various places, gas and electricity had an allocation but no allocation was given for water, and it took a first-class battle to get the allocation. Against that spirit, whether applied to town or country water, this House has to set its face, and to hope and pray—I think both are necessary—that a better spirit may permeate our Government Departments. There are times when we think some of them are beyond prayer, but who shall say what is the strength of prayer? On this occasion I am not including the Ministry of Food.
I know that many hon. Members are keenly interested in this, but one of the drawbacks of this subject is the inherent dislike of many people in our rural areas to pay for a water supply. I know one village in Hampshire which had a live, energetic, new vicar. One of the first things that struck him was the absence of a water supply for the village. He canvassed everybody in the village, pointing out the advantages, and the wives were with him 100 per cent. He thought that when he called a meeting everything would be all right but, following in his footsteps though not following him spiritually or mentally, were one or two other persons who called attention to the fact that while this water might be desirable, it would have to be paid for, and so, when the vicar called his meeting he was voted down 100 per cent. That is not an isolated instance. It may well be that in years to come we shall regard a water supply as a health service and will supply it everywhere in the country, with no houses exempt, and the payments will be made in the general rates. However that time is rather far off.
I suggest that there is a need for a full and abundant water supply to every farm in this country. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this, although he would be the first to admit that he was pressing at a wide open door. I will not go to the extent of my right hon. Friend at Scarborough. Whether he was influenced by the air of the seaside town of his native county, I do not know—he could not have been influenced by anything else—[HON. MEMBERS: "Water."] Well, he might have been influenced by Scarborough water it is true. It is necessary, if we are to develop our agriculture—as I believe every hon. Member who thinks about it at all intelligently wishes to do—that there shall be a full water supply as a concomitant. Here one finds the same objection as that which exists in regard to the villages. I remember that in the drought of 1934–35 a farmer was prosecuted because he had illegally connected to a water main. When he was charged he said, "Well, I could not let my cattle die of thirst" which, of course, he could not. It was not until later that it was known that his predecessor had had a piped water supply and that, when this man took over from him, he saw that the ponds were full and that there was a well. I am not quite sure whether he came from North of the Tweed or West of the Severn; at all events he said, "Why should I pay when I have this well and the ponds?"
North of the Tweed.
It applies equally well to the West of the Severn. At all events we can agree that he showed true Celtic cautiousness. When the drought of those years came, his well and ponds dried up. We have to make sure that when these supplies are given, they can be maintained.
Speaking, as I have some authority to speak, in the name of the water undertakings of the country, I can say that in this connection there will be wholehearted co-operation. Indeed a special committee of the British Waterworks Association has been set up in connection with rural supplies. We shall be prepared to co-operate wholeheartedly because the water undertakings of the country are just as keen as anyone else to see that the good arrangement in the towns is extended to the country, so that no longer shall any house be short of a piped water supply, no longer shall the country housewives have the job of getting water from all sorts of places, and no longer shall the rural water supplies be suspect. I know villages in this country where I take on my visits a small supply of sodium hyperchlorite in order to carry out my own hyperchlorination. I do not like the smell of chloride, and I do not like the taste of hyperchlorinated water, but I would rather have it than run the risk of typhoid. It is by the mercy of heaven that we do not have typhoid epidemics in a number of our rural areas. I know the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are in earnest about this, but I hope that they will so stir up matters that before long, we can see, not gradually but speedily, this blot on the water escutcheon of the country removed.
4.49 p.m.
I welcome the chance of speaking in this Debate on rural water because, in the last year or so in my constituency, I have been asked continually by members of all political parties what is happening about the promised large water scheme, and I always reply to them that I, as well as everybody else, realise that it is an enormous project but that it can be put into effect within a reasonable time.
At the moment I am mostly concerned with the temporary shortage of water in rural areas until the full scheme comes into effect. There are cases in my constituency where proposals for small schemes, which will fit completely into the main scheme when it develops, are being refused sanction, although there is labour and material available, because the survey and all the necessary details for the larger schemes have not been worked out.
I would like to give two examples. One is that of a small village where new houses are being erected and some of the farmers want to go in for further milk production. I understand that the proposed scheme which would carry water to these farms and cottages would cost £15,000. The bigger scheme to be carried out by the rural council, is in the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I understand from the local council that the Ministry are refusing permission to get on with the smaller schemes until complete details of the larger scheme have been placed before the Ministry. Another problem—certainly in that rural council and, I believe, in many others—is the difficulty of getting the right surveyors and technical men and the instruments for carrying out these surveys. I ask the Minister, therefore, to say in his reply whether he can do anything in cases like these.
My second example is of a larger scheme which, I believe, runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Again, it is part of the big Northumbrian county water scheme. It concerns Holy Island, which is off the coast of my constituency and about 2½ to 3 miles from the mainland. It is possible to walk across at low tide but otherwise the only means of access is by boat. The population of that island is not very large—between 200 and 300—but during the summer months the island is so delightful that tourist traffic there is enormous. In the past, we have not been able to supply that island with water because we have not had the modern knowledge of science which we gained during the war. I understand that it would involve carrying the water either over or under the sands to the island. The scheme has been approved in principle, however, but, once again, as it is part of a bigger scheme, apparently it cannot be sanctioned.
I do not know the reasons for holding back on these smaller schemes. If it is merely red tape, I hope the Minister will get up and say that he will cut it—or whatever one does to red tape to get rid of it. If it is something deeper than that, if we cannot do these things because we must wait until the bigger schemes come, I believe the country people and the people of the whole country should be told the truth and the reason for the delay. I ask most sincerely that the Minister should give an explanation in reply to the various points which I have raised.
4.54 p.m.
I am very glad that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter this afternoon. A few weeks ago I noticed a question on the Order Paper asking why in the metropolitan area the use of water had increased enormously during the last 10 years. I imagine the answer is easy. It is due to the spread of education and a knowledge of hygienic ways ot living; and to a determination on the part of all people who can get them to have bathrooms and similar necessities,—not amenities—in their houses. People have learned to use water as it should be used. But what is the feeling of people living not a score of miles away from London—in my own constituency—when they see this sort of Question on the Order Paper and they know that they themselves, although they also have had the good fortune to share the spread of education and have a similar knowledge of the hygienic way of life, are still living under conditions which existed in mediaeval, if not in prehistoric, times in country—without any water at all.
I do not know how many hon. Members have read the Report of the Survey undertaken by the Women's Institute. It is most illuminating. But even more illuminating is to know the people themselves, to go down to their cottages and see the kinds of things which they have to suffer. It is only a fortnight ago that I had to call upon a constituent on another matter and I saw the housewife. It was not a very warm night but she was sitting down and literally streaming with perspiration. It was a Saturday night and she had been to the well 10 times and had brought back 10 buckets of water for the weekly bath—not for herself alone but for eight members of the family, from grandfather down to little Elsie; all of them having to use the same 10 buckets of water for their weekly bath. She had had a terrible business in fetching the water from the well, right at the other end of the village. I have many villages and parishes like this. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who is my Member and whose constituency is next to mine, has exactly the same kind of experience in another part of Essex.
From another village I had a letter sent to me only a week ago. Last year these people had no water supply at all from July until Christmas because the water from their well had completely dried up. The N.F.S. water cart brought water round to them three times a week but it was not fit for their children to bath in. It was not fit for them to do their washing in, let alone to drink. This is how those people have written to me:
As the hon. Lady has referred to my district let me say that I had the honour to be asked to open the Saffron Walden rural water scheme for which I worked, as did the council much more than I did. I also had the honour to attend the opening of the Dunmow water scheme in my area. That scheme, in which I helped, covers two-thirds of my area, a result for which the councils have worked keenly. I have also done my best to push forward the Halstead water scheme which the council, before the war, found themselves obliged to turn down. We are now starting a new one which I hope will go through, then the whole of my area will be covered with water. The hon. Lady has no right to criticise in the way she does. We for our part have been equally keen on these matters.
I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his success in being able to bring so much water to his particular parishes, but we are today talking about the general position in the country and the lack of water, particularly in rural areas. It does not help the matter at all when the hon. Member for West Woolwich, who represents so admirably the water undertakings of this country, is able to tell us that, taking the country as a whole, our water supply is better than in other places. It only makes the disparity between rural and urban areas all the worse, and it makes it so much the harder for the people with whom we, as Members representing rural constituencies, are connected.
I wonder if people realise the difficulty of the situation even in places where there is a piped water supply. In one of my parishes—Nazeing—which is the second largest parish in the whole country, many people get no water at all at certain seasons of the year from just after six o'clock in the morning until nearly midnight. One of the reasons is that the undertaking is very old-fashioned and the bore of the pipes very narrow. During the season when water is needed for watering the tomatoes in the local horticultural industry the supply of the householder is reduced to a mere trickle: also because of the gravel digging which has taken away large supplies of water, people are deprived almost entirely of water. It gets less and less and in the very dry season there is none at all. Another difficulty arises from the fact that many undertakings are old-fashioned. In many areas where there is a piped water supply the main is only on one side of the road and people living on the other side have to pay for bursts in the pipe which conveys the water to their houses. I have received many letters complaining that in addition to a water rate of 25s. a year as much as £30 has had to be paid for the mending of a burst pipe under a metalled road.
Is my hon. Friend aware that in most enlightened water undertakings in the country the connection is from the main and the maintenance is at the expense of the water undertakings?
Yes, but I am talking about unenlightened water undertakings and it is mainly the unenlightened water undertakings which supply the rural areas. It is the same in the village where I live. I am constantly having to pay big bills for the repair of burst water pipes. In addition to the difficulties of having no water at all in the rural areas, there are these other cases where supplies are often so poor that they dry up whenever the weather is dry and there are the undertakings which I have described which make it very expensive for the inhabitants.
I was going to deal with the difficulties of agriculture, but that has already been admirably dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. I turn therefore to an aspect of rural water supply which concerns me very much. One of the worst features of this matter is that many schools are still entirely without water. I can give a couple of questions to the right hon. Gentleman to add to his archive of questions which have been asked about school water supplies. At one time various hon Members were asked to raise questions about the water supply to schools in their counties. The question was asked about Breconshire. The latest date at which information could be given was in 1944 when it was stated that of 76 primary schools only 19 had supplies. In Gloucestershire there were 97 schools with approximately 4,400 pupils on the roll without water supplies.
Anyone who has been to such schools in rural areas knows the difficulties under which teachers suffer when trying to teach children to be hygienic or that it is a good thing when sitting down to a mid-day meal, very often well served, to have clean hands. But often it is impossible to get water unless the children are sent down a steep hill in one case I know of to bring a bucket of water from a pond. Not long ago I went to a school where the children had to fetch every drop of water from an unfenced pond. They could not use the water for drinking and it was not unusual to find a dead cat, or dog in the pond sometimes even a dead sheep.
And this is "Merrie England."
Yes, I am talking about "Merrie England." I ask the Minister what likelihood there is of following the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) that we should get on with some of the small schemes and not wait for the big, elaborate schemes. That is the first and most important answer we should have in this Debate. People have been pressing for that answer for 25 years. How much longer have they to wait? Can we have some of the small schemes so that people in places like Newman's End, Little Paarndon and Nazeing can have water and so that schools which are entirely without water can be supplied?
What is the Minister doing in order to press on the Minister of Supply the necessity for having priorities to deal with this important question? These are questions which are in the forefront of the rninds of hon. Members representing rural areas and who are remaining in the House for this short Debate. Our people's troubles and anxieties are our troubles and anxieties. We know the difficulties that people have to suffer and I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for West Woolwich who represents the water undertakings of the country, that water should be a health service free to everyone, on the general rate. Until that is the position for the whole country we shall not be satisfied.
5.7 p.m.
I am glad we are having a Debate on rural water supplies because I feel sure most hon. Members from North Wales will agree that there is hardly any problem which is more pressing and of more consequence to us as a community. Certain things should be borne in mind when criticisms are being made of the way in which water supplies have been administered since the war. The first is that there is an enormous backlog of arrears to make up. It is extraordinary when one goes into the question of how much or how little was done in the country districts in the years between the wars, to find that there was no impetus from the central Government and very little action on the part of local authorities where there should have been action. The fact of 20 years arrears in such a problem, con- sidered in relation to the general shortage of materials and, in particular, the shortage of steel and skilled labour and having regard to the other demands on materials, is a considerable factor which has to be taken into account in any criticisms which are made on the present administration.
The second factor we should take into account is the haphazard and even chaotic state of the machinery for providing water supplies to rural areas. I think it true to say that the machinery of the 1944 and 1945 Water Acts is thoroughly inadequate. In fact, it is doubtful whether they set up any machinery at all. The Water Act of 1945 begins by saying that it is the duty of the Minister to conserve water supplies and ensure adequate water supplies but it leaves it entirely vague how that duty shall be carried out. The first Section having said that it shall be the duty of the Minister to do those things, the Act relapses into saying that the Minister may require local authorities to formulate schemes for providing water. All through the years the trouble has been that there has been no one authority with the urgent statutory duty of bringing water to the rural areas as a whole.
The third thing which we should bear in mind is that while the duty of bringing water to the rural areas has been left to the local authorities, those local authorities, especially the rural ones, have been overburdened with many tasks with one character and another since 1945, and it may not be fair to blame them too much for the tardiness of some of them in promoting schemes. Some of them have had very much in mind the high cost of these schemes, but the people who should have been promoting water supplies have also been engaged in promoting housing schemes as well. Considered together the duty of providing houses and the duty of providing water schemes have been a serious burden with which the smaller authorities have not, perhaps, the staff to deal at a time like the present.
Fourthly, although I have not seen the figures I should be surprised if the position as regards the farms in North Wales were not worse than that of England and Wales as a whole. That at least is the position as regards the supply of electricity. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was conducting his investigation into the incidence of tuberculosis in Wales he found that the condition of the houses in the villages as far as the supply of water was concerned was positively shocking.
From time to time I get the most pathetic letters from my own constituency, which has no shortage of water falling upon it. One of its towns, I will not name it, is reputed, though undoubtedly quite wrongly, to be the wettest part of Wales—the Manchester of Wales. But owing to the steep sides of the mountains the water flows down and there is scarcely any conservation of the water. Only last September I had a petition from a village saying that there had not been a drop of water in the village for three weeks, and prior to that there had been no water fit to drink for six months.
The position in some villages is very bad. One of the most famous of Welsh villages, which has 250 people living in it, is still without a water supply. The position of the more isolated farms is worse. Very few farms in outlying districts have any water. Only a few of them, where farmers can afford to have a private installation, have a water supply. Going through a small village the other day I noted the only source of water was a roadside well from which passing motorists could replenish the water for their cars. Anyone who passed could drink from the well, which was subject to all the pollution consequent upon being at the roadside. People for a distance around had to carry the water in buckets to their houses. When they complained of pollution, the authorities built a hatch with a door and a lock on the well and supplied a key to all the villagers, whereupon they sent me a petition and said, "What we want is a tap and not a key."
What does all this amount to? We are entitled first to know what is the priority given at the Ministry of Health and the Welsh Board of Health to these water schemes which are submitted to local authorities. I have not found that they turn down small schemes. I have found that although they take time, small schemes go through—but they do take a very long time. But before we can hope to tackle the question of rural water supplies properly we must have fresh legislation. The existing legislation is entirely unsatisfactory. The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) referred to the report made by the National Women's Institutes. That report, which came from a body which is a non-party organisation, dwelt upon the necessities of electricity, sewage and clean piped water, and said the only way to supply them all was by means of a national plan.
Surely among all the amenities to which human beings are entitled, apart from a roof over their heads, the supply of clean water in pipes is the first essential before any other amenity—electricity, gas or anything else. It should be borne in mind also that applications for houses in some villages are being turned down because there is not a water supply and the people are thereby losing the chance of having the homes they need. We have a national scheme for electricity, which I think is a good thing; we have a national scheme for gas. Surely there should be set up a national scheme and a national plan for water as well. It should not be left to overburdened local authorities. It should not be a burden on local finance. Often it is where the need is greatest that the financial aspect will also be too frightening.
I would like to see all this chaos of private undertakers and public authorities swept away and a national water plan created with a national water board, charged with the duty of supplying at the national cost and at equal rates throughout town and country clean piped water to every house in the land. In a country which calls itself civilised we are entitled to this elementary amenity for health and hygiene. I hope that in the remaining time left to this Parliament the Governmen will seriously consider bringing forward such a national water plan.
5.17 p.m.
I am in warm agreement with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) I find it, as he does, difficult to understand how this Debate could be opened from the Opposition benches with any satisfaction whatever about what had been done before the war. This problem goes back not merely to immediately before the war but for generations past when those in effective control both of the private and public means of supplying water could perfectly well have extended this ordinary amenity of civilisation to the cottages in the villages as well as to the large houses. If one goes round Northamptonshire, which I believe is called the county of squires, one will find in too many places that the only proper water supply in the village is in the large house, that the cottages have no water and that there is no piped supply in the village itself. That reflects the history of this country in one of its most unfortunate aspects.
For ten years before 1935 there was unemployment in this country measured in terms of millions of men and women, men who could have worked on water supply schemes. During those ten years the average annual sanction in loans was the niggardly sum of £425,000, while millions were being wasted upon that unemployed labour, much of which could have been used for providing this amenity of civilisation. The Rural Water Supplies Act, 1934, provided £1 million by way of grants, not a large sum considering the number of parishes and the high proportion of population in the countryside which had no water supply. It was a measure not of the wealth of the countryside so far as the local authorities were concerned, but of the urgency of their need that by the end of 1937 £8 million had been added to that £1 million, so that altogether £9 million had been spent at the rate of £3 million a year.
This House recognised, and rightly, that expenditure on that scale was quite insufficient to deal with the problem, long standing and obstinate as it was, and there was a grant by the Coalition Government—a notional grant, for no money was given at the time—of £15 million under the 1944 Act. It is said that the Ministry has done nothing and has been remiss. But in the last published report of the Ministry it clearly appears that schemes have at any rate been conceived and brought to the stage of application for grants in respect of between £12 million and £13 million for water supplies, and £18 million for the equally necessary and closely related purpose of sewerage.
It was discovered, and indeed it might well have been realised, that as soon as the supply of piped water was increased sewerage schemes were thereby made more urgently necessary, and very rightly and properly the sum of £15 million was intended both for water and for sewerage. I hope we shall remember that it is not much use discussing the taps in the baths if we do not also consider the plugs out of them and that water supply and sewerage are absolutely inseparable.
I do not call the mere planning of some £30 million of schemes by March, 1947, which is the latest date to which we have the printed Ministry reports, at all a bad achievement. I turn to my own parish pump, or collection of parish pumps, and I find that there has been a great deal more than planning. By the end of 1938 there were about 35 per cent. of the parishes of the country without any piped water supply. Other figures have been given for rather later dates. In Northamptonshire, the proportion was rather higher than the average. In March, 1946, in my own constituency there were 39 parishes labouring under this difficulty.
I am not saying for one moment that enough has been done, but during the 15 months between March, 1946, and June, 1947, it so happened that of those 39 parishes three were provided with a piped water supply, in five work was in progress, and in 21 schemes had reached various stages of advancement, in some cases actually waiting on schemes in progress in order to be put into execution. I am not saying that that is enough but it is a considerable achievement, and by comparison with the dismal story of what happened in the years of unemployment between the wars, it represents a remarkable achievement in a time when there is the present urgent difficulty about the supply of steel piping, which is, after all, the essential shortage in this matter.
But all that is only the history of getting water to the villages. I spoke of the parish pump. I am sick of parish pumps. In my Division I go to village after village and I find that the only source of water is a pump to which people have to come from incredibly long distances for their water. I can tell the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that they do not merely sweat in the process but in other seasons of the year they also freeze.
I urge most strongly that it is not sufficient to bring a water supply to a village as has been done under some private agencies, and then leave it to leak out at the village pump. Bring it actually into the houses of the people and let the council and the Ministry who have to consider the matter look at it from that point of view and take what powers are necessary to ensure that the supply does not end at a leaking parish pump, but goes into the houses of the ordinary people in the villages, just as it goes into the larger houses which are so fortunate as to have their own supply.
That is one side of the matter, and I would make another plea to the Minister. I appreciate that there are cases, as in my own constituency, where housing schemes have been held up by lack of water, but so far as it is possible to do so, let us proceed with the housing schemes and with the water schemes, too. Do not make progress on one depend on the progress on the other. It does no harm to have for a time, as some new houses in my constituency have, taps labelled "hot" and "cold" from which there emerges only air when one turns them. It is better to have a house over one's head which does not let in the water in the wrong place, and to hope, with some confidence, that the water supply may come afterwards.
As long ago as 1934 the Medical Officer of Health in Northamptonshire pointed out in his annual report two tendencies in the provision of water in this country. One of them was a tendency to co-ordinate. That was the earlier of the two and the later and subsequent tendency has been to require larger and larger units to supply and administer the necessary water. I urge on the Minister that in that respect it is entirely wrong to say that the present legislation is either sufficient or satisfactory.
As the hon. Member for Merioneth had in mind, the Federation of Women's Institutes when they considered this matter published a report to which reference has already been made several times. They are a non-party body, but a party of people who suffer more from a deficient water supply in the countryside than anyone else, because it comes down on the woman and the housewife all the time. They passed a resolution, expressing the opinion happens to be singularly dry. Geographically it is a difficult area to hold and gather water. There are few rivers in it. If water can be brought for the city of Birmingham from the Welsh hills, as it is brought, there is no reason why water should not be brought to these dry counties of England from far afield. But what happens when a scheme is put forward? It has to be put forward by agreement among the local authorities. The last scheme of that kind that was likely to affect my own division worked out financially in this way. Each succeeding local authority tried to push the cost on to the next local authority down the fine, and as my own constituency was at the end of it, the figure by the time it reached there was somewhat astronomical. They rightly said, "We can even get modern beer at that price," and they did not take it. Surely that kind of business shows the need of national responsibility.
I entirely agree that there should not be any distinction between water and any of the other public health services. Surely water is an absolutely necessary thing. Not only ought there to be provision on a national scale, but it ought to be provision at a cost evenly spread over the whole country. We do not investigate whether this road or that road pays, nor do we look too closely into the costs of other absolutely necessary public services. Why should water be treated separately and left to this confusion between conflicting local authorities?
In my division recently an attempt has been made, in that and neighbouring areas, to set up a joint county water board. That proposal has been met by opposition from some areas on these sort of grounds: True, this is an excellent scheme for water supply; true, water is badly needed; but in our little area we have enough water already and, therefore, we do not propose to come into the scheme.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks to see what the basis was, he will find that a large number of the objections were on the ground that the scheme was a thoroughly bad water scheme.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will agree with me, for I think that he took some part in the public inquiry, that a great deal of the opposition there was purely on the lines that a scheme may be necessary, that this appeared to be a good scheme for some people, but it did not suit others to come in because of their own particular narrow interests. I do not want to go into the merits of the argument. I merely say that it is entirely wrong that the provision of water in this country and the co-ordination between the authorities should be left any longer as a matter of agreement. There should be power to make these schemes not merely in counties but on a far larger basis.
Therefore, I should like to urge on the House both as regards water and the co-related problem of sewerage, about which I have not time to speak today, that we should remember the human factor in these matters. We should remember the immense difference that this would make to the countryside and to the villages. If we are to have sufficient agricultural production in this country, if we are to meet in one of the few ways open to us the present tendency of rising food prices in the rest of the world by creating more food in our own country, then we must provide for the ordinary villager, both the agricultural worker and others, those amenities and that type of social life which has been accepted by town workers without question. That is something which has been fought for by town workers and won by them, and it now falls to be fought for by rural workers and to be given to them by this Labour Government.
5.34 p.m.
I seldom speak on agricultural matters though I represent an agricultural constituency. In fact, I have made only one speech upon agriculture. I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but I cannot resist after listening to some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) is present because I should like to recall an incident which has a bearing on what he said. In the year 1908, no less than 40 years ago, I initiated, I think, a Debate in this House on this very question. I pointed out, in language far less eloquent than that to which we have just listened, the essential character of the need for water in the rural districts. What was the answer? Let me tell this to the hon. Member who represents a Liberal constituency. The answer I got from John Burns was, "What is the use of talking to us about it? The Tory party have been in power for 10 years. Why did not they do something?" It was a very bad answer in view of the record of the hon. Gentleman's party during the years they were subsequently in office.
I suggest to the House, and to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who invariably uses this argument, that really nobody is greatly impressed. It is not what happened 10 or 20 years ago which concerns the people of this country today. The question is: When are they to get the water? That is the only question that matters. Nobody cares what happened 10 or 15 years ago. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite murmuring to the contrary. If they want to find out, let them go to any constituency and use the kind of arguments used in this House—that the Tories did nothing, therefore, we are very sorry but we cannot do anything much.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Merioneth that it is desirable to look at this matter so far as possible, from a national point of view. It is quite right to say that in some districts it is almost impossible to get water. To use a terribly modern phrase, there is no availability of water. It is an interesting fact that in part of my constituency if a well is dug, one may in one place get perfectly good water, but 20 yards away one may get water which has a very strong saline deposit, so much so that at one time investigations were made by certain oil interests to see whether oil was present. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for a particular local authority to get water, because it is not available. North Wales has no excuse for not getting water, because there is plenty there. However, in parts of the South it is most difficult to get water.
Despite my attack on hon. Gentlemen opposite, I would suggest that the House might show a certain unity of opinion on this matter, because really the public are not concerned whether the Tories or the Socialists are to blame. They want the water, and they want it very soon. I should like to ask one or two questions. I should like also to controvert one suggestion. It is untrue to say that very little was done in the years immediately preceding the war. In my part of the country there was a greater extension of piped water than, in the previous 10 years. It may be that we were increasingly becoming a residential area.
The first question I wish to ask relates to grants. There are some rural districts who are adopting what seems to me a most curious procedure of saying, "We can put such and such a water scheme in our area on a priority basis if the residents or the landlords will supply a certain proportion of the cost of bringing the water along the main road." That is absolutely wrong. The question of the liability of the landlord or tenant for water should extend only to connection between the main and his house or farm. It would be useful if the Minister would make that point clear in the course of his observations.
In parenthesis, I should like to support everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I know from my experience the absolute need of bringing water to farms. Also, in justice to private landlords like myself, I should like to say that many of us have spent thousands of pounds at an uneconomic cost which is really fantastic—we have got nothing at all out of it—in bringing private water to farms in order that the milking may be carried on. Even the greatest opponents of private enterprise would not deny that that is so. I hope I have made myself clear on that point.
I come to another matter in which I ask for the assent of hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as hon. Members on this side of the House. The point to which I refer was the gist of the admirable and succinct speech of my right hon. Friend. Like me, he only wanted to speak for a very short time and, therefore, he had to compress his remarks just as I have had to compress mine. The point which my right hon. Friend made, and which I am most anxious to make, is this. I should like the support of hon. Members opposite in asking what is the priority of rural district councils in the matter of the supply of piping and other things they require. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is an authority on these matters, and I am glad to have his assent.
My impression is that the local authorities are not getting the proper priority. They ask for pipes or a certain amount of skilled labour, but they are told that housing schemes in villages which are mainly residential must come before the provision of water for rural districts. That is the experience of the rural districts, and there is great indignation about it. The rural district councils see that everything is done for the towns and nothing for the villages, and they reply, in their defence, that they cannot help it because they are not given priority.
I hope the hon. Gentleman who replies will deal with these questions, and that out of this Debate will emerge a general consensus of opinion in the House that it is really necessary, whatever may have been the faults of the past, or indeed the faults of the present, that the Government should press on with this scheme by which we are to get the agricultural development which we all want to see.
5.41 p.m.
I think the neglect in the past of the question of water supplies has not been political. I think it was because the outlook of the country has been industrial, and because everything which has tended to increase the industry of the country has obtained the necessary facilities. As a result, we have neglected the rural areas which do not contribute to the industries of the country. I think that nothing expresses more clearly the urban and industrial outlook of past Governments than the neglect of the rural areas, because they believe that the success of the country in exports and so forth depended on the development of its industries.
The neglect of the rural areas has resulted in the depletion of the population in those areas, and I feel that, to a certain extent we have not overcome that industrial outlook. Even this Government, when they started to nationalise our industries, began with the big industries of coal, electricity and transport, whereas we have a service here which ought to have been dealt with as a national service first. There ought to be a national body upon whose shoulders will lie the responsibility for the supply of water to every house in the country, and until we get some national body, responsible for the collection, storage and distribution of water, we shall not have a satisfactory solution to this problem.
The Government should look at this matter again and bring in a national scheme whereby this situation can be fully dealt with. The necessary water service is exceptionally costly and water authorities in rural areas hesitate because of the cost. It will not be until the cost is borne nationally that we shall overcome this difficulty. One of the ironies of the situation is that large towns obtain their water from rural areas and carry that water right through those areas, but neglect them completely; and very often we find large supplies of watet travelling through a village which itself has no water supply. Situations like that can only be overcome when dealt with on a national scale, so that no large authority shall have the right to take water out of the rural areas and transport it away from those areas without dealing with the needs of those districts. The Government must look at this situation, because such anomalies will continue if the position remains as it is at present.
Another point, on which I have already touched, is that of the depletion of population in the rural areas, and this will continue until we get in these areas all the facilities which the people have in the urban areas. What is the present position? We are now taking out of the rural areas children who go to modern schools, and we are transporting them right into the areas where they are obtaining modern training in such things as housewifery and hygiene. A girl goes to a modern school to be taught housewifery and has the use of hot and cold water, electricity and gas, and then, at the age of 15, she leaves school to go back home into the rural area to carry water a long distance, to use rainwater caught by the troughs outside the house and to have to boil that water on a coal fire. She simply will not do it, and thus we find that these girls, as they grow up, seek the amenities of the town and we lose them from our rural areas. It is essential, if we are to keep the life of the countryside and develop agricultural life, that these facilities shall be provided in the villages.
It is ironic in this country in 1948, that we are dealing with a subject like this at all when we consider our rainfall, and we find that, when we get two or three days of weather such as we are now enjoying, certain areas of the country run dry. It is an appalling situation, and the subject of the conservation of water is one of the first with which a national board will have to deal. With a greater use of water, not only in our rural areas but in our town today, the present system of storage is inadequate. Take the case of Manchester, which, in the spring of this year, ran short of water. After all, the rainfall which we get in the Lake District and other areas makes that situation ridiculous. Again, this question of storage is one which only a national board can deal with, because the cost of building large reservoirs today is so very high that few authorities can undertake it.
Another factor is the very wide differences in this country in the storage of water. In many places, we can store our water in reservoirs and, in others, we must bore for water, build water towers or put in boosting plants. The co-ordination of all these schemes in order that the whole of the country can enjoy these facilities is something that only a national board can deal with. I hope that the Government will look into this question, and, before the end of their term of office, will set up a national board to deal with this very urgent matter.
5.50 p.m.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) has broken new ground in connection with the most important subject of water conservation, a subject which has not been mentioned before in this Debate. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say something about it when he replies. It is a matter which I raised during the Debate on the Second Reading of the River Boards Bill, when I got a somewhat unsatisfactory reply. There are certain joint advisory water committees, but I should like to know whose responsibility it is to study the subject of water conservation from a national point of view, and what steps have been taken to provide for future requirements.
The hon. Member for Chorley mentioned the case of Manchester which suffered a severe water shortage during the last 12 months. We frequently read in the news- papers of country districts running short of water when, with the ample rainfall in this country, there is really no need for these periods of scarcity and drought. I realise that the provision of reservoirs is an extremely costly business. Very few big schemes have been undertaken, and most of the better known ones are those situated in Wales, such as the Elan Valley scheme which supplies Birmingham, and the Vyrnwy scheme and Lake Bala, from which the water goes to Liverpool and district.
During the Debate on the River Boards Bill there was much discussion on the severe floods which affect the River Severn. It had been suggested by members of the Severn Catchment Board that if there were several Lake Vyrnwys and two or three were kept empty, it would be possible to avert some of these floods. Altogether that would be a costly project. However, I feel that some sort of satisfactory arrangement might be made, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say what body is responsible for studying this problem.
I have no doubt that in 25 years or so the water consumption in this country will probably be double what it is today. There is no doubt that piped water will be laid on to every dwelling place. People may adopt the habit of having baths, which causes an extensive use of water. Then, of course, cows must be reckoned to consume water at the rate of 30 gallons a day, as was stated by my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate. At present, the vast majority of cows drink what golfers call "casual" water, which is a most undesirable habit because it is the surest way of passing on tuberculosis. The first thing that any sensible farmer does when his herd becomes attested is to lay on a piped water supply throughout his farm and to fence off those ponds or other drinking places which have been used down the ages.
Another aspect which should be studied in the problem of water conservation is, as I have already mentioned, the catching of water when it is plentiful rather than the constant drain on existing water supplies, which lowers the level of wells and rivers. We often read in the papers that wells have been sunk in various places in order to supply water for villages or districts. Very often, the consequence is that the fishing in a river, or the water for a village lower down the stream are sadly affected. Therefore, there should be some national body to study this problem and to suggest what should be done about it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will also have something to say on that matter.
As regards constituency problems which have been much ventilated during this Debate, my constituency, like many others, has no local authority water scheme in existence, but the schemes necessary to provide piped water throughout the villages are already "on the map." I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address some remarks to these schemes and will say why such long delay and meticulous examination must take place before any of the work can be commenced. It seems reasonable to suppose that water schemes will eventually be sanctioned for all the rural areas which have drawn up the necessary plans.
I should have thought that part of the work could have been started even if the source of supply was still unsettled. There might be discussion as to whether water should be brought from a particular reservoir or should be taken out of a river and purified, or, again, whether a well should be sunk. As it is almost certain that some source of supply will eventually be provided in these districts, surely it would be possible to expedite some of the schemes by getting on with the laying of pipes and putting into operation sewerage schemes which should really precede the laying on of the water.
In our part of the world, all the schemes are "on the map" and yet next to nothing has happened, even though we know from where the water is coming. I dare say that the financial aspect of the matter has to be closely examined before anything is done. In the mining villages of Highley and Alveley in my constituency, a great number of houses have and are being built, but the villages have no adequate water supply and there is no prospect of those houses being supplied with piped water at the present time. There is also no adequate sewerage scheme. The district councils concerned have prepared schemes which have been approved in principle. I should have thought that they could have been told to get on with the work of laying the necessary pipes.
I hope the Minister will say something about the reason for these apparently interminable delays in taking the final plunge and getting on with the schemes. I hope, too, that something will be done to convince people that these schemes are going to be worth while. As has already been mentioned in this Debate, whenever a water scheme comes up for discussion in rural areas, there are always plenty of people ready to say that the scheme is not worth the candle.
Earlier in this Debate an hon. Member suggested that the cost of water supplies should be a charge on the nation like the National Health Service. It is well to remember that the National Health Service is also a charge on the individual. Therefore, whether we pay for water through the rates, through taxation, or as a secondary part of our National Health contributions, it is a matter of small moment provided we can convince people that it is essential and must not be held up by a quibble about the cost and how the money is to be provided. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to issue a little brochure on the laying of water supplies to villages and houses because it seems that the authorities wait until the roads have been mended before opening them up again to lay the pipes. I notice, too, that builders invariably put pipes on the outside walls of houses instead of bringing them up in the middle, so that when there is a frost the pipes burst.
6.0 p.m.
I am glad to have this brief opportunity of speaking on the question of rural water supplies, because it is a problem in which I have taken an interest ever since I entered politics. The other day, looking up an old election address of mine when I first stood for the county council, I found that I was bold enough to advocate a comprehensive scheme for supplying the villages in that area with water. Today those villages are still without a piped water supply, in spite of the fact that a great deal is being done in that respect. In some parts of Norfolk schemes have already been put into operation; in other parts the district councils and the county council are preparing schemes and have them in various stages, but there are some parts where the problem is much more acute than in others, and those areas are pressing for permission to get on with the task.
When the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, was passed, out of a total of 523 parishes in Norfolk no fewer than 383 were without a piped water supply. In Norfolk we undoubtedly have the largest area—true, it is an agricultural area—without a piped water supply. Therefore, we are most concerned to know how fast we can proceed with our schemeś. The district councils have engaged water engineers to prepare the schemes, and the county council has gone through those schemes before submitting them to the Ministry. The one thing with which we are impressed is the enormous cost.
We cannot separate the problem of water supplies from the problem of rural housing, education, the building of new schools, the laying and improvement of roads and so on. Now that agriculture has been put upon a firm basis, and prosperity has been extended to nearly every village in England, the people are now in a position to pay for these modern amenities. However, although they are prepared to pay a reasonable price for an adequate water supply, when we bear in mind that in many districts a mile of mains supplies only about 100 people with water, it will be appreciated that the cost is enormous.
In view of the urgency of this problem, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the Ministry have reviewed their policy in relation to these schemes. In the early days immediately following the war, it seemed to us in Norfolk that the Ministry were in favour of large schemes—say about three great schemes to cover the whole of Norfolk. We have not gone into the estimated cost of those schemes as a whole, but we have estimated the cost on the basis of certain districts, and we find that to supply only a part of Norfolk will cost something like £4,100,000, according to the latest estimate. If in those parishes where water is available we sank bores 100, 200, or perhaps 300 feet, those villages could be supplied adequately with water for the next five, ten, 15 or 20 years. On that basis we calculated that for the next few years we could supply far more villages with a piped water supply than would be possible with the larger schemes.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether he or the Ministry have given consideration to the paper that was read before the British Water Works Association at their annual meeting on 16th June by the county sanitary inspector for Norfolk. He went into this problem very closely, and, having reviewed all the schemes in Norfolk, he is of the opinion that there is now a need for a change of policy, if within the next few years a wholesome piped water supply is to be given to a great number of our villages. We know that many farms are at present having their water supply schemes subsidised by the Ministry of Agriculture. If village after village could be treated on the same lines and the Ministry were prepared to give a subsidy to enable the inhabitants of the villages to have a piped water supply, as well as the farmers, it would meet the immediate need and would get us through the next few years while further consideration was being given to the more comprehensive schemes for a county like Norfolk.
6.6 p.m.
We must all be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) for giving us such a refreshing topic on this very hot day. I have one regret about this Debate, and that is that the Minister of Health, whose eloquence is renowned and who is usually so quick to give his successes every publicity, should not be here to give an account of his stewardship. This is a matter of major importance. It affects the whole of our rural reconstruction and revival. Yet the Minister of Health is not here today.
The Rural Water Supplies Act was passed three years ago. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) when he was reciting the history of this matter, gave what I thought were most valuable figures. He reminded us how in 1935 an Act was passed which provided a grant of £1 million and he said that in three years £9 million worth of water schemes had been completed. It showed how, with the incentive of a grant and the stimulus of the Ministry of Health, the local authorities provided the water which was most urgently required. It is now three years since the Rural Water Supplies Act, 1944, was passed. Under that Act £15 million was devoted to this purpose. When I asked only six weeks ago what had been the result since that date, the figure that I was given—and I accept it; it must be true if it was given by the Minister of Health—was that £46,000 had been spent by way of grant out of the £15 million in three years. At that rate it will take 1,000 years to spend the £15 million.
What is wrong? That is what everybody here is trying to find out. It is no good the hon. Members for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) and Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) saying that we want fresh legislation and some great national plan. We have got the legislation; what we want is to carry it out. There is a grant of £15 million to local authorities to enable them to provide the much needed water as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Chorley said, "Let us have somebody responsible to see that every house in the land is provided with water." That has already been done by Parliament under the Act which was passed in 1945. The responsibility is clearly on every local authority in the country. Therefore, the problem remains one of administration to ensure that the provisions of that Act are carried out.
I thought the remarks of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) were very pertinent to our attempt to find out why there has been this delay. I believe what has gone wrong is that the Minister has been indulging in a form of megalomania about these water schemes. I do not merely indict the Minister of megalomania in this respect; I also indict his officers and the water engineers of many local authorities. I quite understand, and the House will appreciate, that it is to the advantage of a water engineer to have some vast scheme which takes water across the water table, which takes water provided by nature from one parish and spreads it over a hundred parishes. That is something of which he can be proud. It means, however, complicating the machinery of water supply; we are not dealing with one local authority, we are dealing with a number of local authorities. As a result, the people do not get the water which they deserve and require.
The Minister has committed himself too far. Too many schemes put forward by local authorities, asking that they should have a quick scheme, have been turned down by the present Minister ot Health and in their place he has embarked on some great scheme which will take a number of years. We could not go back to the idea of the hon. Member for Southwestern Norfolk of a borehole for every village, but I think we should be able to cut up these gigantic schemes into schemes which are limited at least to one local authority. That would make things far easier. Some of these big £250,000 schemes could well be cut up into two or three schemes.
I think I can illustrate what I mean, and the charge I make against the present Minister of Health, by referring not to a parish pump but to a constituency water problem. In 1945 the whole of a large area of my constituency was being rationed for water and, shortly after the allocation in August, I wrote to the present Minister of Health and said, "Here are my constituents rationed for water; here is the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act; will you see that this scheme, which my constituents have devised over the area of one local authority, shall be implemented without delay?" The Minister wrote back to me, after the usual delay of a month or six weeks, saying that he would press on to secure that progress "is as rapid as possible." That was in September, 1945.
Meanwhile, my constituents continued to undergo water rationing, and in December I pointed out that the reservoirs were nearly empty and asked what other action was to be taken. At the end of 1945 the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me saying that he could make no definite promise, but hoping for a conference early in the new year. I anticipated a shortage and wrote to him warning him that in the next summer there would be a shortage. The next summer came and the daily newspapers contained illustrations of my wretched constituents taking water in barrows for one mile from the stream.
When we wrote again to the Minister we had nothing but a promise that there would be another conference of technicians. The scheme that was put forward in 1945 was rejected so that there could be a five-authority scheme. That will provide water from a booster pump and take it to areas which could be fed by gravitation—water is to be pumped uphill to help the Ministry in their scheme. I do not mind how the water is provided so long as it is provided, but not until January, 1948, was that particular scheme approved and even today not one single sod has been cut.
That shows to me that the Minister has really got himself bogged down in the bureaucracy of water administration. He could have gone forward not only in this particular case, but in cases which other hon. Members could give as illustrations in every part of this country; he could have gone ahead with reasonably-sized schemes which would not have required all this very complicated machinery, these local inquiries, re-valuation of costings, technical inquiries and the other things which have led to general delay.
I believe another reason why we have had such a poor result from the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act arises from this question of materials which was touched on by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Is the Minister of Health getting from the Minister of Supply the necessary materials to implement the Act? I asked the Minister of Supply a question on 21st June as to what proportion of the total consumption of lead and steel was devoted to water supplies in 1938 and at the present date. The Minister of Supply replied that he would give me estimates of what proportion was devoted to these industries in 1938 but, in his words, speaking of the present time:
The figure for lead for 1938 which the Minister gave was 40 per cent. Curiously enough, four days later "The Metal Bulletin," a weekly newspaper which deals in these matters, contained a small editorial saying how surprised they were that the Minister found he could not tell us what was the present allocation for water supplies, because they themselves had published it, and the figure was there given. Now we know. In 1938 it was 40 per cent. of the lead for water supplies and building. Last year it was 27 per cent. In the first quarter of this year the figure was 25 per cent. That side of the water supply problem is of great importance, because the lead is required for connecting the mains to the houses. Why is it that the Government have allowed the proportion of lead for water supplies, including rural water supplies, to drop from 40 per cent. in 1928 down to 25 per cent. at the present time?
I have no figures, and have been unable to get the figures, for galvanised tubing, but I wish the Parliamentary Secretary—if he is not still under the rule laid down by the Prime Minister that he should announce no facts on this matter—could give some indication of what priority he is receiving in galvanised tubing for water supplies. I will simply give him this opinion, expressed by many who are engaged in local authority work and in agricultural work. It is their opinion that it is far easier to obtain galvanised pipes for farm extensions than for local authorities to obtain them for rural water supply schemes.
As hon. Members know, I have a great desire to see agriculture flourish in this country, but I am quite sure that in this matter of rural water supplies the priority should be for all those who dwell in country districts rather than for the industry of agriculture alone. Until we can get water supplies laid down for every cottage we shall not attract men to work in agriculture. Is it a fact that pipes are going rather to the schemes of the Ministry of Agriculture than to those of the Minister of Health? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us on that point.
This is really the part of the Government's administration on which depends the whole of their rural policy. It is no good building houses unless we have the rural water schemes and also rural sewerage schemes laid on. It is no good expecting to arouse any great revival in agricultural production until water is laid on sufficiently to permit of alternative husbandry. It is quite idle to talk, as the Minister of Agriculture talked at Scarborough, about water being laid on to every field. That may be achieved in the dim future; but we must see to it that, as more water is required for agriculture and for milk production, greater resources are brought into the rural districts.
What I think has not been sufficiently stressed in this Debate today is the fact that this water problem is, in many areas, a new problem because of the greater rate of consumption in dwelling houses and, particularly, in dairy plants. It is because it is a new problem that we must have new priorities and we must have more action. I hope very much that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will give us more hope than we have received in answers to Questions in the past.
6.22 p.m.
I think we are all agreed that this is a very important subject, and I am glad that the Opposition chose to spend some of their time on it. It is a pity in some ways that we are not discussing water supplies in general, because the Debate has tended to flow over from the question of rural water supplies to the question of supplies in general, and I have been asked a number of questions, including those put by the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), which would take me into a very wide field. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who initiated the Debate, seemed to suggest that the legislative pattern was now all right, although some of my hon. Friends thought very much the opposite. I myself would not say I am wholly satisfied with the processes that are open to us at the present time; but it would take me far beyond my subject today to go into the principles on which our water supplies in general should be organised.
There is nothing new about the difficulties of piped water supplies in rural England and Wales. It is a problem that has been with us for generations. It has always been neglected, like a number of other matters vitally affecting our rural communities. While I am always content to be judged on the performance of the Government of which I am a member, while I am content to be judged by what we do or do not do, when I find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden talking about the inter-war years, and arguing from what happened in the inter-war years to conclude finally that we are not doing as well as Governments then, then I hope no one will accuse me of going over past history if I summarise what, in fact, was then happening.
It is true that in 1934 Exchequer grants to the extent of £1 million were voted to assist the provision of supplies in rural areas; and it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that this resulted in work to the extent of over £6 million. However, the niggardliness of this can be gauged, I think, when I say that the value of the schemes submitted to the Ministry of Health since the war already exceeds £35 million. The other thing I would point out is, that the Government of that day ran true to form in that they skimmed the cream by providing supplies to rural areas where this could be done at relatively low cost. The impressive figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave may have misled us into supposing that the problem had really been tackled, and that there was not an awful lot left to be done.
However, as he himself indicated later, 30 per cent. of the parishes still needed something to be done. Moreover, he must not think that, because he gave figures for parishes, that means that the whole of each parish has an adequate supply of water. It may be that only one part of a parish is adequately supplied. When I consider what could have been done in 1935 and 1936, when materials were plentiful, and when thousands of good men were crying out for work, I cannot let the allegation pass that we ought to have done in just three years what, apparently, was left undone for so long.
It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the Coalition Government in 1944 set aside £15 million for grants towards rural water supplies and rural sewerage—£15 million for the two services together. I think that that was a bit more generous. I doubt very much, on what we know already, whether it will be found that it is enough. We shall have to consider what further provision should be made when the sum of £15 million is exhausted. I do not think it is enough because I do not think it really took properly into account the change in outlook in the rural areas, and the growing restiveness there with the kind of conditions which have been so graphically described to us, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). In any event, although the sum was voted—or, at least, the legislation was passed—in 1944, the job obviously had to wait until the end of the war before it could be properly tackled.
I want to submit to the House that we have, in fact, put forth a very great effort indeed, as I shall show, with some—as I hope—compelling figures in a moment or two. When we first started it was clear that the preliminary planning of the schemes would be a much more lengthy process than had originally been thought, and that a good deal of time would have to be spent on this before there could be anything like a real attempt actually to provide supplies throughout rural Britain.
A number of rural district councils required schemes, but very few of them were able to engage permanent water engineers; and this has meant, as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) that the relatively few expert consulting engineers—those capable of doing this work—have been very overburdened. That is one reason why we have used to the full our engineering inspectors to try to undertake as many surveys as possible, about which I shall have something to say in a moment or two.
I would, however insist that it is important to plan the development of our rural water supplies, and that a lot of the trouble we now have to face arises from the practice of treatment here, treatment there, without any proper co-ordination, and that unless we want to leave to future generations a whole host of difficult problems we must do our best to settle them now in a reasonable and orderly way. We have, therefore, encouraged local authorities in the first place to submit schemes in outline, so that we can be assured that they are on the right lines, before time and money are spent on the preparation of detailed plans and working drawings, which might otherwise need revision when the work was well advanced.
The policy which I have just described is producing good results. The estimated cost of the proposals submitted to the Department in respect of water alone exceeds £35 million. Permission for work to start has been given to schemes exceeding £5 million, and, in addition, schemes to the total of about £8 million have been approved in principle; that is to say, they have reached the stage when detailed drawings and contract documents can be prepared or, may be, have reached the stage where tenders can be actually asked for.
As to the middle category, if tenders have been authorised for £5 million, that is a much larger figure than that which we have been given before.
I think that is perfectly true. What has been happening is that there has been an enormous amount of preparatory work, and we are now beginning to get the results of that work; and, in fact, in recent months the jump forward has been quite extraordinary.
Since May?
I am now talking about the total figure. The total figure is just over £5 million on work which has been finally authorised. The figure on the 30th June, 1948, was £5,110,000. If we look at it from the point of view of grants, we have already promised grants under the 1944 Act for schemes costing nearly £9 million. It is, I hope, significant that the value of the schemes authorised and approved in principle, after taking into account increased costs, is already in excess of the total value of the work produced by the pre-war rural water grants. That was at a time when there were no shortages of material and labour and no fierce competition from other services of the kind which we have at the moment. What is even more encouraging is that, despite the strain on the engineering profession and the shortages which I have mentioned, there has been a considerable rise in the output of work authorised during the past 15 months. The value of the schemes finally authorised during the year ending 31st March last was getting on for twice that of the previous year.
May I ask a question which I think was mentioned in the Debate? What my right hon. Friends and I want to know is: How many of the rural district councils where the schemes have been authorised and where permission to go ahead has been given, are complaining that they cannot get the material with which to carry out the work? Is the hon. Gentleman going to refer to that?
I would ask the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to let me develop my speech. I am at the moment talking about the figures, and I was pointing out that the value of the schemes finally authorised during the year ended 31st March last was getting on for twice that of the previous year. If the rate of progress during the first three months of the current year continues during the remainder of the year, then the value of the work authorised this year will be more than double the value of last year's output. I would go so far as to say that I am pretty certain that by the time we come to the end of this financial year, we shall find that this year's output has been substantially better than that of the best year before the war.
If we are to be judged by what happened before the war, I think that the figures which I have given, based, I agree, in the last case, merely on what has been happening in the first three months of the year, are sufficient to indicate that rural water supplies are being tackled with a vigour which even the best of the inter-war years did not equal. Therefore, I submit to the House that I ought not to toe called upon to apologise for what we are doing, and that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden ought really to have congratulated the Government on a fine performance.
Can the hon. Gentleman explain one discrepancy in the figures? The figure for approved work was £13 million instead of £12 million at the end of the year, but he has a new figure in schemes approved for grants of £9 million. Will he explain the discrepancy between the £9 million and the £13 million?
I was careful to say that in the figures which I have been using I have been talking about the total volume of work coming in front of us, but when I gave the £9 million figure, I indicated that amount of work for which application for grants had been made or for which grants were already promised. The two figures obviously will not tie up at any particular point of time. I want the House to understand that the main figures which I used all referred to the total amount of work, but I thought that the House would be interested to know the amount of work covered by grants.
Reference has been made to the responsibility borne by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who, as has been pointed out, has wide powers for making grants to assist water supplies for agriculture, powers which he has freely exercised by helping farmers and others to provide local supplies when public supplies are not available and cannot be made available within a reasonable time. I am informed that the estimated value of the works in England and Wales for which grants have been promised during the period from 1st January, 1945, to the end of last month inclusive is more than £4 million, and a large number of these schemes afford supplies to the farmhouses and cottages as well as to the fields. I am told that, taking the period from the time of the 1944 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, grants for the connection of cottages to farm water systems have covered more than 7,500 farm cottages, which have had a pipe supply as a result of grants made primarily for agricultural purposes.
I was particularly asked whether the scheme which is in operation in respect of cattle and milk production could be extended to pig and poultry-keeping and to market gardening. It is the view of the Minister of Agriculture that the needs of pigs and poultry are less than in the case of cattle, and while he is keeping the matter under review, particularly in view of the expansion in the pig and poultry population, it is his present view that it would be wrong within his present allocation of materials to extend the scope of the grant-aided schemes; or, put differently, he could only make provision of the kind asked for at the expense of the provision which he is making for cattle and milk production; and that, having to choose, he prefers, in the present circumstances, to continue to give the grant for cattle and milk production.
I turn now to the wider aspects to which reference has been made. We have been trying, through our engineering inspectors, to supplement the work that is being done by consultant engineers in undertaking surveys—mainly for the county councils—in urban and rural areas, and we have now in process a very large number of surveys covering a considerable part of the country which, together with the work that has come in from consultant engineers employed by the county councils, is in a fair way of giving us a comprehensive picture of the situation in the country as a whole.
Do these surveys take place on the initiative of the Department, or only when the local authority so requests? The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that Devon and Cornwall are scheduled in the national survey as the worst area in this regard, and I should like to know that some initiative is now being taken to remedy that state of affairs.
The position is that, while a certain amount of work is done by county councils, or by water undertakings coming together, when I speak about work done by engineering inspectors of the Ministry of Health I am speaking about work where the initiative lies with us. Cornwall, for example, is one of the places we have already covered by a survey conducted by one of our engineering inspectors. The results of these surveys will, of course, be available in due course to the Central Water Advisory Committee, a body to which can be referred questions of water conservation.
A number of specific questions have been put, and I should like to answer them. In particular, I was asked about the smaller schemes, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) implied that the Minister of Health, all his officials and the engineers of the county councils were all suffering from megalomania. I know it has been said in some quarters that the Department concentrate too much on regional schemes for supplying large areas, but I say that that is not the case. True, there are times when we cannot allow part of a scheme to proceed because it is so bound up with the scheme as a whole; in some places joint schemes are, in fact, the only possible way of dealing with the problem, and the surveys which have been made amply bear out that view.
But even in those areas the Ministry of Health are perfectly willing to approve temporary local sources for immediate urgent needs, provided that the route of the mains will fit in with the comprehensive schemes when the sources for the comprehensive schemes are developed. Quite apart from temporary schemes—speaking quite generally—if costs are reasonable, and if an adequate supply can be secured, there is nothing to prevent the use of local sources for small areas. Although we place the greatest emphasis on developing our water supplies comprehensively in a planned way, and while we know that there are great parts of the country which cannot possibly be handled with a number of little schemes—whether it is a temporary or a long-term arrangement—if a village, for example, can properly be served by local sources, then we do not want to stand in the way.
Questions have also been asked about the grants, and the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was good enough, as he promised, to let me have a note telling me what the effect of the Local Government Act had been on rate burdens in the West Riding. He was not able to give me the precise figure, but he did tell me that according to Command Paper 7253, if the Local Government Act had been in operation in the financial year 1946–47 there would have been a saving to the West Riding County Council of from 19s. 6d. to 13s. 7d. in the £. That would have been the decline. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that here we are concerned to give grants in order to help councils which really cannot afford schemes to carry them out, and that we cannot possibly leave out of account any substantial changes which take place in the rate burden as a result of the Local Government Act. I think it would be unreasonable to expect that we could relieve a council of, say, 5s. in the £, and then, when we come to consider a grant under the Water Act, not take into account the change in their financial circumstances.
Therefore, while I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our real desire to help authorities which really cannot afford the cost of water supplies, I am afraid it is unavoidable that we should take into account any changes in the rate burden consequent upon the changes in the grants under the Local Government Act.
In the case of this rural district council the grant was reduced, so I am informed, from £15,000 to £4,500, which is a greater percentage reduction than that which I was able to procure from the Parliamentary Secretary for the county as a whole. Therefore although we have not got the final figure from which we can assess the rural district council's needs, it appears that the rural district council will have a very heavy burden. All I ask is that he will give a further assurance that the needs of these rural district councils will be borne in mind.
Oh, yes, I willingly give that assurance; but I do not really think, on the material we, between us, have been able to get while the Debate has been in progress, that we are in a position to say how much relief the particular rural district council concerned got. All I say is that we must take into account the changes; but our general policy is to give help where we think it is needed.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that all the applications for grants will have to be revised as a result of the passing of the Local Government Act?
If there are any substantial changes, I think we shall have to reconsider any grants that have not, in fact, been made.
The view taken about the landlords' contributions has been that landlords should be asked to contribute only when the cost of a scheme—not a domestic scheme but a scheme primarily for agriculture—is pretty high, and where presumably some advantage would attract to the landlord or to his tenants, as the case may be, if the scheme were forthcoming.
I asked that question, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will elaborate what he is saying on this matter, because it is not a question which can be dealt with in that rather desultory manner. The point I put to him was a specific one: do the Ministry, or do they not, accept responsibility for the attitude of certain local authorities in saying, "Yes, we will bring the water along the road when the persons there—not one person but a number of persons—who are not exclusively engaged in agriculture, have to pay for part of the cost"? Do they or do they not accept responsibility for that state of affairs, which I think is a most inequitable suggestion?
I do not think it is for the Ministry to accept or deny responsibility. All I was saying was that the only cases of which I am aware where landlords are asked to make contributions are cases where the cost of providing the water supply would be high; but in the ordinary way that contribution is not expected.
It was also suggested that too large a proportion of the limited resources available for water supplies was being allocated to urban areas. I put it to the House that it was inevitable during the first two years after the end of the war that the main effort should be concentrated in urban areas. The virtual cessation of new works of supply during the war caused very heavy arrears, and since the war new housing and industrial development have resulted in a very large increase in water consumption, and, as I know, in some urban communities the situation has been really critical.
We could not, therefore, avoid allowing urgently necessary schemes for meeting these urban shortages to go ahead. I doubt myself whether this has appreciably slowed down rural water supplies, since very few of the rural areas had their plans ready. Many of these schemes approved mainly for the urban areas have enabled supplies to be afforded more quickly to rural areas than would otherwise be the case. But we have now reached the point where we can really place a greater emphasis on the rural side of the work. It may interest Members to have some figures to show that what I am contending is so.
The total value of schemes authorised for water supplies in 1947–48 was £13½ million, of which rural water supplies covered just over £2 million. In the first three months of the current year, the corresponding figures were £3.1 million and £1.2 million. In other words, the proportion had jumped from 16 per cent. to 39 per cent., whereas the proportion of the rural population in the country is 18 per cent. I have every reason to suppose, therefore, that we shall get a very much greater emphasis, as indeed we are now getting, as these months go on.
Finally, may I refer to the Central Advisory Water Committee and tell Members that the main work of the Committee is being done in sub-committees? We are working the members very hard indeed, and it is likely to be the case for some time to come, but if any member of the Committee wishes a meeting to be held, we shall be only too glad to have such a meeting. And so I contend that the statement I have made does show, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman implied at the beginning of the Debate, that we have put a great deal of energy into this, and I can assure Members that we appreciate the problems and will do our best to continue the good work.
The Parliamentary Secretary promised to answer a question put by myself and by hon. Members opposite, but when I endeavoured to get an answer I was, frankly, snubbed. I asked this specific question: is it or is it not the case, when he speaks of these grandiose figures, that a number of schemes are being held up through no fault of the local authorities—because they cannot get the materials?
I was quite courteous to the noble Lord. If the question is whether schemes have ever been held up because there are no materials, the answer is that from time to time schemes are held up. Because we are dealing with long-term planning it is not easy to phase our work. The overall limitation of the times is a shortage of materials taken as a whole, but within the Departmental allocation of both labour and materials we are doing everything we can, and, incidentally, are doing as well as was done in the best years before the war.
Will my hon. Friend say a word on the very heavy proportion which goes in distribution and the consequent heavy rate burden?
Will the Parliamentary Secretary really deal with this question of priorities? Are rural water supplies on the Prime Minister's list for priority in respect of galvanised steel and lead? It is no good evading that issue because it was the main purpose of the Debate, and we have been given no answer at all.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) knows that rural water supplies are not on the Prime Minister's list, but there is no service which has a higher priority, outside those on the Prime Minister's list, than water supplies, and more than half of the cast-iron allocation of the Ministry of Health is going to rural water supplies. Within the limitations of what we have got, we are doing our best for rural areas to make up for lost ground.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is a sufficient allocation of materials to supply all the schemes represented by the grandiose figures he has quoted? Can they be carried out? Is it a physical possibility to carry them out? That is a straightforward question.
We do not allow a scheme to start unless we are satisfied that the labour and materials are likely to be available.
I was very interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that local schemes would be allowed to go forward, but will he make sure that while these surveys are made and while these grandiose schemes are put in hand local schemes are not allowed to founder, because in my part of the world, certainly so far as the immediate future is concerned, rural water supplies depend on these local schemes which could be brought into play at this moment if interest were taken in the matter? I am sure that this applies throughout the country from what I have heard in this Debate. I am sure that there is room for local schemes which will in no way militate against any major schemes which the Department may have in mind.
Question put, and agreed to.
Civil Aviation
Resolution reported:
"That a sum, not exceeding £68,189,793, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Civil Aviation for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:
£ Class VI, Vote 16, Ministry of Civil Aviation 17,189,783 Class X, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply 51,000,010 £68,189,793"
Resolution read a Second time.
6.58 p.m.
I beg to move to leave out "£68,189,793" and to insert instead thereof "£68,188,793."
This Amendment would have the effect of reducing the vote by £1,000. As there is little over 2½ hours for this Debate I hope to set a good example to both sides by being reasonably brief. We claim the right to have a full Debate on this subject in the autumn when circumstances will make it easier for us to find out a great deal of what we want to know. We shall be able then to know something about the progress of our British air types. The announcement made this week by the noble Lord, the new Minister of Civil Aviation, deals mainly with the Tudor II. I should like to associate the Opposition with the view that we must not see this problem of the Tudor II out of perspective. We must not give the impression to the country and to the world that the British aircraft industry is under censure.
Orders totalling some £25 million have been given to the British aircraft industry for the future, and those of us who are very interested in our own types look forward with real justification to the future success of types like the Comet, the Hermes, the Air Speed, the Brabazon I, the Bristol medium range Empire type and the S.R.45, to mention a few. As for the Tudor II, the account of which presents such a sorry story, it is, in our view, in a large part due to muddle on the part of the Government.
The second thing which makes a Debate in the autumn more profitable is that we shall then have the three reports of the Government monopoly Corporations. We had one report for the year's work in 1946–47, the first year after the British airlines were so gaily nationalised after the Socialist victory. This shows, as the House will remember, a loss of £10.3 million. The noble Lord tells us that for 1947–48 the loss will be slightly more, and he goes even further and says that in 1948–49, which is two years after the last published accounts, we shall find it hard to keep within the limit of the £8 million subsidy, to which this year it is to be reduced.
Thirdly, by the autumn we hope we shall have a full report of the production trials of the Tudor II, instead of the abrupt and rather uninformative statement which we have had so far from the Ministry of Supply. We shall also have the report of the committee of private business men, called the Hanbury Williams Committee, which has been set up to advise the Government on how to order aircraft. We see this morning that American business men are to be brought to this country to tell us how to increase our production—a rather humiliating thought when it is considered that we were once the greatest productive and manufacturing nation in the world. But here is a committee of our own business people, which the Government have set up to advise them how to order aircraft. From statements made in another place it looks as though their account will be published when it is ready.
The last reason why a Debate in the autumn may be more profitable than a long Debate now is that it will give the Minister a chance to settle down. Personally, as a friend of long standing, I welcome Lord Pakenham's appointment, and hope he will be allowed to stay at the Ministry. At the University of Oxford, when I was 21, he wrote my life, but I have no doubt that if he wrote such a book now, it would be written in harsher terms. We see, from one of the weekend speeches of the Minister of Health, in his ever-present desire to promote national unity, that he said, in effect, that if a Minister in a Socialist Government was praised by the Tories, it was time to look on that Minister with suspicion. I shall be very careful in what I say about Lord Pakenham, or it may be that we shall have Lord Nathan back again.
I should like to say about the present Minister, however, that if he tries as hard for harmony between the Government, operators and manufacturers as he tried for harmony in Germany, he will deserve well of the country. The noble Lord will know something of the delay in execution consequent on being a member of a Government of planners. He himself was chairman of a committee which was set up in 1946 to advise his colleagues on the flying base which we so desperately need. More than two years have passed, and no decision has yet been reached. That being so, the noble Lord will no doubt approach the various problems, as between his Department and private industry, with a certain amount of sympathy. We hope the Minister will be allowed to come to and implement his own decisions.
It is difficult for the Opposition to discover what Government and Cabinet Committees take decisions in matters concerning civil aviation. From time to time we hear rumours of a Committee over which Lord Addison is supposed to preside. Not long ago this noble Lord said, of this tragic muddle, that he was not disposed to be uncharitable and unkind to any of the parties concerned, and I was a little alarmed at what appears to be failure to deal adequately with people who ought to be reproved.
Other Ministers are now interesting themselves in doing the work of the Minister of Civil Aviation. We hear that the decision to buy Canadairs was pushed, in Government circles, by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Lord President of the Council. The Lord President's main concern at the moment, as a party manager, at a time when 40 per cent. of the workers' income is taken from them in taxation and rates, is that at least one nationalised industry should not be losing millions of the taxpayers' money by the time the next Election arrives. The reason for bringing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster into this discussion, dealing with the purchase of dollar aircraft, is ho doubt that no one in the country has had more experience than he has of recklessly spending American and Canadian dollars.
It will not surprise the Parliamentary Secretary when we say that the whole setup is wrong, that there will never be profitable civil aviation, or really good civil airliners, so long as the present organisation continues too large and too top heavy. Under the monopoly Corporations the operator cannot be allowed what should be the elementary freedom of choosing which aeroplanes he will fly. If the monopoly Corporations are the only customers of the British aircraft industry, and that industry must, for all sorts of other reasons, be kept flourishing, not unnaturally the Government feel that they must tell the Corporations what aeroplanes they must have. The manufacturers have no operators competing for their products; so the urge to efficiency which competition brings is in part absent.
The unhappy story in civil aviation will no doubt be reproduced in the near future, in connection with railway locomotives. The one-time competition in the machine shops will go, orders will be pooled, and there will be State ordered railway engines and wagons, not competing with each other or trying to catch the export market, but all turning out the products in a uniform fashion. We believe that this situation can never be remedied until the present bureaucratic, monopolistic set-up is broken. We find that even Lord Samuel, whose party went into the Division Lobby in favour of nationalisation, thinks that a fundamental inquiry is necessary—
Where are the Liberals?
They are not showing tonight any interest in civil aviation which, for a brief period at the Croydon by-election, appeared to be their most passionate interest.
It is rather a hard welcome to the new Minister to say that many of us are beginning to wonder whether his best contribution to civil aviation would not be to recommend the abolition of his own Ministry. In 10 years, it has grown from a staff of 373 people, who formed the Civil Aviation Department of the Air Ministry, in August, 1939, to 4,950 in May, 1947, and, now, to 6,900. Further, we are promised that when our airfields are wholly nationalised the number will increase to 11,000–11,000 people to run a Ministry which was always intended should be a small, compact business organisation. We are not impressed by the recent Government statements that charterers should be asked to come in and help run routes which the Corporations have not been running properly, or economically, for we know that they will not be allowed to fly on scheduled routes. The Act will not be amended, and there will be no real freedom in the air.
I should like to deal briefly with the muddle shown by the Courtney Report, and the real fear in our minds that, although complaining about the mistakes of the past, and openly acknowledging them, as Lord Pakenham does readily, we are committing the same mistakes again. In 10 or 12 years' time there may be another inquest similar to this. What about the muddle? The strange story of the Tudor II is attracting a great deal of attention in this country and overseas, and a little history may be helpful.
In December, 1944, the Imperial Air Conference, which owed so much to my noble Friend Lord Swinton for its inception, accepted the principle of parallel operation between the United Kingdom and Australia, and the United Kingdom and South Africa. Each of these members of the British Commonwealth, using their own national air lines, were to tly from terminal to terminal, but using the same aircraft. In July, 1945, the Empire Civil Air Transport Operators' Committee confirmed the decision that the Tudor II should be used by all three operators, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.
Then came doubts in the Dominions' minds as to the efficacy, for this purpose, of the Tudor II. Foreign competitors, who were armed with different aeroplanes, were doing very well. The Dominions had second thoughts. In July, 1946, Quantas Airways said they did not want the Tudor II, and took Constellations instead, and, soon afterwards, South Africa said that they too did not want Tudor IIs, and ordered strato-cruisers. But modifications went on. The first indictment in the story is, therefore, this: despite that, all through the rest of 1946 the great aircraft works of Messrs. A. V. Roe carried out the conversions and modifications asked for by Australia and South Africa just as if there had never been a cancellation of their orders.
The second and even greater charge is that when two operators like Australia and South Africa, who it was known were determined to make these lines profitable, cancelled their orders, surely that was the time for the Government definitely to make up their mind whether they proposed to go ahead with the Tudor II or not and, if not, to concentrate on the Tudor IV, which might well have had an even happier development. If that had been done two years ago, we might have the Tudor IV on our Empire air routes instead of the Canadair.
We should also remember that in March, 1947, the Chairman of the Interdepartmental Civil Aircraft Requirements Committee asked the Government to meet the need existing then by buying Constellations and fitting them with Bristol engines. This was turned down by the Government and yet one and a quarter years later they are going to do exactly the same thing with Canadairs. It is common knowledge that the Minister's quarrels prevented that happening and yet there is now the same project with regard to Canadairs, a plane of less pay-load than Constellations.
Meanwhile, B.O.A.C. were playing with the idea of flying Tudor II's west of Calcutta and north of Nairobi. Continual modifications almost suggest that some people in key positions never really intended to take Tudor II's at all. The continual wrangles stand out a mile, such as the wrangle on day or sleeper accommodation and the new colour scheme, for which materials could not be got, because of a control in one department which was working in a vacuum—in isolation. It was a case of one control holding up materials from October, 1945, to June, 1946, over a question of furnishing, like curtains, at a time when our national prestige depended on us getting the Tudor II into the air and finding out what, if anything, was wrong with it.
At the same time the operators never ceased to talk of the importance of weight, and yet they would not compromise in the slightest degree in regard to the extra weight because of their decorative require ments. Also, they demanded 90 per cent. of the maximum specified payload for cargo. The deadlock went on from mid-1945 to January, 1948, and there was always the continual dispute of who was going to pay for the modifications. All this led to the damaging conclusion ot the Courtney Committee that the Government had failed to discharge their responsibility of leadership, and that is why we feel we should be failing in our duty if we did not challenge this Vote tonight.
More important really than the errors of the past—and they are pretty blatant—is our fear that the same errors will be reproduced in the future. The Courtney Committee, it is worth while recalling for the Government's benefit, repeat what they said in their first report, which is a most damning indictment on muddle and procrastination. It is worth while reading to the House the recommendation of that first report, because by so doing we shall put on record again what was said. Here is what the report says:
Also ominous is that the Aircraft Requirements Committee, which is the Department's and the Corporation's together, have not got manufacturers' representatives on them despite the urgent plea of the Select Committee many months ago that that should be done, and to which attention is also drawn in the Courtney Committee report. Also alarming and disturbing is the clear evidence of lack of trust and co-operation between B.O.A.C. and the manufacturers which, when future planes come along from the manufacturers, might well create just the same sort of difficulties as those on which we are now having an inquest tonight. There is still failure to bring into effect the words in the Coalition White Paper:
Of course, if the manufacturers go into commercial operations afterwards, the Government ought to be recouped out of the commercial sales. Thus the Government should place development orders and the operators the commercial orders, and if after commercial orders have been placed, modifications are required, the operators ought to pay for them. If we establish that simple principle it will enable us to clear up a great deal of the present muddle.
A further ominous sign of our failure to approach this problem realistically is evident from the answer given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary on 21st July. I asked him a question in regard to these Canadairs for I wanted to know when they would come along. The hon. Gentleman said:
Then will come a period which the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his answer—a period of one year while we are trying out the aircraft before putting them into operation, so that we shall not have the fleet until August, 1950. Yet the Hermes, we are told, is promised for 1949 to be operating in 1950, and as Lord Pakenham went out of his way to pay a tribute to Sir Frederick Handley Page, it looks as if they expect him to carry out his promise. If that is so, we are entitled to ask, Why not more Hermes, more aircraft built over here? The Minister trusts the manufacturer, who has promised them for 1949, to be operated in 1950.
The last comment I want to make on the present causes for alarm relates to the Ambassador, that magnificent aeroplane, the prototype of which is now at Christ-church. Many hon. Members may have had an opportunity of seeing it. I hope and believe, with confident expectation, that their fellow-countrymen will once more praise the de Havilland Corporation for their enterprise in that regard. We owe a great deal to this company. We ought not to forget to congratulate de Havilland on the Ambassador, the aeroplane which is going to replace the Vickers Viking. Captain Somers, in a Viking two or three days ago, established a world record on the flight to Paris and showed that though Governments may not know, air manufacturers and pilots, given a chance, do know how to carry out their job.
In regard to the Airspeed, everyone talks now as though the B.E.A. always wanted the Airspeed and had gone straight ahead the moment the aeroplane was devised. Of course, that is not true. Not long ago, the B.E.A. did not want the Ambassador at all. The company at once told the Ministry of Supply that they would stop making it. As they had plenty of work, they said, they would fill the Airspeed factory with something else. That is the sort of language that Government Departments understand. In a very short time after that, the B.E.A. announced that they wanted the Ambassador and all is now going well. Even tonight, however, no contracts have been placed and there have been no instructions to proceed. Although morally the Government are pledged in this matter, it is a very unrealistic, uncommercial and unbusinesslike way to do things. That is not the way to get full co-operation out of a firm, or to get the financial side properly organised.
We ought to remember in regard to the Ambassador that it has been asked for at the beginning of 1951 and that it will come along until 1952. Yet the company hope to be able to supply the first aircraft in January, 1950. I very much hope, even though the B.E.A. has still got its fleet of Vickers Vikings at that time, that the Corporation will be persuaded to take the Ambassadors over, and, in their own flying tests, will find out whatever changes may be needed. This is particularly necessary, because the United States have two comparable aircraft to the Airspeed, the Martin 202 and the Consolidated Convairliner. Of the latter type 27 have already been delivered to operators who are now getting experience of this new type from which we hope great things in three or four years time. So the Corporation, or whoever is the operator of internal airways by that time, ought to take the Ambassadors as soon as de Havilland's can supply them.
I promised to be brief. I am afraid I have not kept to that promise in quite the way I intended. I will end by saying that all the fears and alarms to which I have given expression lead me and my hon. Friends to the conclusion that however sincere the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary may be, and the many devoted people who work with them, either the machine will break them all, including the Minister, or better still, the Minister will alter the system first.
7.24 p.m.
I always admire the skill with which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) weaves the strands of his story to give the appearance of a damning indictment of the Government. Yet, if one examines each separate strand, one finds weaknesses in them. I shall take only a few.
The hon. Member has talked of the Corporations being monopoly corporations. I should have thought that that expression did less than justice to a novel feature in the Government's nationalisation of civil aviation, which is the creation of three separate Corporations. It does less than justice also to the fact that each of those Corporations is subject on its own routes to severe competition from surface transport and from private charter companies, to which a wide liberty has been given in the Civil Aviation Act.
Will not the hon. Gentleman, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, admit that the charter companies cannot run scheduled services, and that it is the running of scheduled services which would make for really good competitive air travel?
Curiously enough, it has been argued recently that the private charter companies have a great advantage over the scheduled airlines in that they need not run unless their aircraft are full. I could not go as far as that. I would say that in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, there was a fair division between the scheduled air services and the private charter companies.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken, rather disingenuously I thought, of the greatly increased size of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. He should surely have mentioned that since the days when the Ministry or rather its predecessor, had a staff of 373, the transport aerodromes of this country have been brought into public ownership, which has imposed a vast new responsibility on the Ministry. This nationalisation of the airfields has met with very little opposition because the cost of these airfields is so great that no private organisation is anxious to have the responsibility of running them. The hon. Gentleman has also spoken at some length about delays to the production of aircraft generally, and especially of the Tudor aircraft. That is a subject on which I should like at some time to unburden myself to the House. There is no time to do so this evening and I doubt whether I could express myself tonight in Parliamentary language. The time may come when I shall feel able to unburden myself on this subject.
I will take up the hon. Gentleman on one point, because I feel that justice is due to one person who, being still in the public service, is not able to defend himself. I refer to the charge made in paragraph 90 of the Courtney Report, quoted by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, to the effect that effective leadership should have come either from the Ministry of Supply or from the Ministry of Civil Aviation but,
At the time in question, the Ministry of Civil Aviation did everything possible within its powers to see that Tudor aircraft were brought into production. The one thing that it could do was to prevent the Corporations from demanding modifications which would have delayed the aircraft. It is brought out in the Courtney Report that in March, 1946, the Ministry of Civil Aviation did take the only action that was open to it. It issued a fiat to the Corporations that no modifications were to be permitted except those required by the Air Registration Board in the interests of safety. I submit that the Ministry of Civil Aviation at least is exempt from any charge that may be made by the Courtney Report or by anyone else.
I am going to be brief this evening. I want to concentrate for the remainder of my few remarks on what strikes me as being the root of the matter. Here, I shall find myself, I think, in rather more identity with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford.
The present ordering procedure for civil aircraft passes comprehension. As far as I can see, there is only one way out of the present difficulty and that is to put the operators and the makers in direct contractual relationship. The present system is one which increases the costs of the aircraft because there is a loading charge by the Ministry of Supply for services which most of us would be very glad to do without. It leads to great delays because two Ministries are interposed between the makers and the operators. It leads above all—and this is the main charge I make—to a blurring of responsibility.
This has several bad effects. In the case of the operator, it leads him to demand modifications which he would not demand if he were in a direct contractual relationship. Naturally he wants the best aircraft he can possibly get and so tends to go on asking for modifications when there ought to be a deadline, and we should say, "No more modifications after this date." If there were a direct contractual relationship this continual demand for modifications would not be possible. There would come a time when the operator would know that he had to be content with the aircraft as it then stood. In the case of the manufacturer, the system is bad because it tends to encourage inefficiency. A good deal of very pertinent evidence has been given on this point in the sixth Report of the Select Committee on the Estimates. Mr. Verdon Smith gave valuable evidence in his capacity as president of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors, but it is perfectly obvious to anyone reading between the lines of his evidence that he was not speaking for the whole industry. It is the case that most firms in the industry rather like the present system. It is an easy-going system. They are sure of their money. They are not tied down to any particular dates or any particular specifications. It is one which naturally suits the more indolent manufacturers.
It will be said to me, I have no doubt, that the United States, for whose performance in civil aviation we all have such admiration, has, owing to difficulties recently encountered, been thinking of adopting the British system. That is the most cheering news I have heard for a long time in British civil aviation. It is very cheering news indeed if the United States should come over to such a cumbersome and costly system. However, the British aircraft industry is not united in its desire to maintain the present system. It is well known that there is one firm in the industry, already referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford, the finest aircraft-manufacturing firm in the world—I refer, of course, of de Havillands and its associated company Airspeed—which is prepared to enter into direct contractual relationships with the operators. It is prepared to quote a firm price for its aircraft, to quote a firm date and to quote a guaranteed performance and to incur penalties if it does not fulfil its obligations. That is the only way to proceed in this business. That is the only way to get clear responsibility and the minimum of costs, and the only way in which we shall get aircraft able to hold their own with anything in the world.
7.34 p.m.
I am sure that many of us were deeply disappointed when the decision was announced to purchase Canadair aircraft as we hoped that the Tudor would prove to be a satisfactory machine. I await with interest the published results of the final test trials which will I hope make it plain that for technical reasons, and technical reasons alone, the Tudor was unsatisfactory.
The Tudor II.
Yes, the Tudor II. However, I would like to have an assurance tonight, if possible, that the Canadair aircraft are capable of standing up successfully to the same tests which have been imposed on the Tudors. It would be very wrong if the Canadairs were accepted to a lower standard of specification and a lower test schedule than those to which the Tudors have been subjected. It is difficult to tell on what basis the Canadairs have been selected as regards tests and technical data because in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) a few days ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had only got the manufacturer's information to go upon. We know that manufacturers are sometimes rather optimistic—
I am certain that the hon. Gentleman wants to be accurate. His statement is accurate except that it was not made by me, but by the Minister of Supply.
I apologise. At any rate, it was a Government statement that it was the manufacturer's claims which were acted upon.
I am sure that throughout the evening comments will be made on both sides of the House about the system of ordering these aircraft, both British aircraft and aircraft built overseas. The Government must think again over this matter. It is no good turning round and saying that they have appointed a committee of businessmen to go into the matter. Businessmen are accustomed to operate in a comparatively free and competitive market. While they will bring their brains and ability to bear on the problem, the conditions of the problem are essentially ones to which they are completely unaccustomed.
The Government have decided to set up a monopoly of civil aviation. A monopoly cannot expect to go to a variety of manufacturers, and have machines ready for them to select or discard as they like, for the simple reason that there is no alternative customer to whom the manufacturer can tender his wares if the monopoly corporations are not prepared to select what is offered. Where we have a single customer, obviously we must have a special relationship between him and the manufacturers. That relationship becomes particularly important when it comes to what I will describe as "running in costs." Manufacturers cannot carry the full cost of "running in" troubles themselves. They have not the opportunity of running airliners under operating conditions to find out what these "running in" troubles are for the very good reason that the Corporations have a monopoly of all commercial flying of a regular service character. Therefore, by reason of their having a monopoly, the Corporations must take on this burden of the "running in" of new types of aircraft on service routes. They cannot escape that cost and that burden for the simple reason that they have the monopoly advantage conferred on them by the Act.
Much the same difficulties arose during the war in connection with tank production when one had a monopoly user, the Army, and a number of manufacturers. The user—the Army—said, "We want to be given a tank which works; we do not want one containing a lot of bugs which have still to be got out in service." How could the manufacturers find out what those troubles were until the Army had taken those vehicles and put them into service? We have a similar situation today—a monopoly user who is trying to evade responsibilities which are his by the very fact that he is a monopoly.
I should like to know what is to happen to the Brabazon and the S.R. 45. I would like an assurance tonight that there will be no appearance of turncoat, no change of heart or change of policy, by the Corporations when these aircraft near completion. The story in regard to the Airspeed Ambassador, which was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), reflects the most unbusiness-like methods adopted by the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I hope we shall not see a repetition of that type of delay.
May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because this is an important question? I understood that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford blamed not the Government but B.E.A. for failing to order these aircraft. It is important—I believe the Opposition are in agreement—that there should be commercial freedom for the Corporation. If they have commercial freedom, the Opposition should not attack the Government.
I agree, but even if the Corporation is to blame, it is financially dependent on the Government, and will be careful in placing a large order which will commit itself for a long time ahead. The Government cannot escape responsibility in this matter because they have interfered to such a considerable extent in the past. We would like to see the Corporations having complete freedom to buy where they like provided they recognise their responsibilities as monopolists, responsibilities which ordinary private enterprise firms operating in competition could not, and should not, be expected to have. I hope we can have assurances in regard to the Brabazon and the S.R.45 that there will not be that change of policy at the last minute, which has been so lamentable in the past two years.
I want to turn to one matter which I feel has not had enough attention in the technical field, flight refuelling. Great progress has been made in regard to this, and extensive tests have been carried out over the North Atlantic, where some 40 or 50 successful refuelling operations have been carried out under the sponsorship of B.O.A.C. I believe that had flight refuelling been adopted for the Tudor II, it would have been a commercial proposition on the North Atlantic route, and there is something distinctly mysterious, to put it no higher, that B.O.A.C. sheered away from their flight refuelling investigations as soon as they saw it might result in their having to use Tudors refuelled in flight.
I know that the decision to take Canadair has been made and cannot now be reversed, but I hope that flight refuelling will not be shelved just because it helped to demonstrate the possibilities of using the Tudor at a time when perhaps nobody wanted the Tudor to be too well thought of or too well demonstrated on that route. Great economies are to be achieved in flight refuelling, and it has proved its worth on trial runs on the South American route. By it we might well achieve formidable economies which would enable us to obtain a lead in civil aviation beyond what even the most optimistic supporters of British aviation could expect.
7.43 p.m.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) asked a number of extremely interesting questions and we shall look forward to the answers at the end of the Debate. I was also interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), not so much in the details, but the way in which he put forward his arguments. It seems to me that the world at which the hon. Member looks is an extremely simple one. On the one hand, we have the bureaucrats associated with the Government who make muddles and, on the other hand, we have all the people associated with private enterprise who fly about, break records, and generally get things done. I only wish that the world was quite so simple as that, because the solution to our problems would not be so difficult to apply.
The arguments of the hon. Member appeared to be based on two propositions: first, that almost all of the tragic muddle, as he called it, of the Tudor was due to the delays on the part of the Government; secondly, his implication was that if private industry was as inefficient and lost as much money as did the Ministerial Departments and the nationalised Corporations, those private companies would be driven out of business. It would be as well, in the interests of accuracy and of finding the right solution, if the hon. Member was not quite so selective when he looks at the evidence.
For example, he said that the report on the Tudor led up to the "damning conclusion" that it was the Government's fault that the Tudor was not used. In point of fact, the interim report of the Courtney Committee, which he quoted, puts the reasons under 18 different heads, and only under 11 is there any suggestion that it was the Government—and then only by implication—which was to blame for lack of leadership. As far as the final report is concerned, the first of the principal conclusions states that the delay was due to the need to await the completion of the aerodynamic investigations of the Tudor I, and the aerodynamic troubles arose solely because of changes made by the company on its own initiative.
I do not propose to go into the first of the propositions made by the hon. Member in view of the time but I would like briefly to examine the second, namely, that a private industry would be turned out of business if it lost the same amount of money, or was as inefficient as it is alleged are the nationalised Corporations. The evidence we are able to get, however, suggests that private industry is not driven out of the aviation business if it is inefficient; indeed, there is a great deal of evidence which suggests that it is almost as profitable to make an indifferent aircraft as it is to make a satisfactory one. Although I do not wish to say that the British aircraft manufacturing industry is inefficient as an industry; of course not, but we have a right to criticise particular aspects of it, and as a representative of the taxpayer, I think we ought to know a little more about the way our money is spent in the ordering and development of aircraft.
Some information about the methods of payments for new aircraft types given to me seems so strange that I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us a little information at the end of this Debate. For example, is it correct that we pay for these new aircraft on the basis of the cost of wages plus 250 per cent. for management, plus 12½ per cent. for handling fees, plus the cost of materials, plus a certain percentage for some other overhead costs? If that is the way we develop our aircraft, then clearly there is almost a premium upon modifications and alterations. Although I admit that any professional man, technician, or worker associated with an aircraft wants to get a good job done as efficiently as possible and finished as quickly as possible, nevertheless, if the method of payment is as suggested, I feel there is some incentive to delay. According to the second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, on top of all these development costs there is what is described as a profit fee. The overheads include an element for payments to directors, but it was made clear in the evidence that in addition there is a profit to be negotiated irrespective of whether the product is satisfactory or otherwise.
How has this method of payment worked out in the case of the Tudor? In the first place we were told that the cost of this aircraft was to be £75,000. Eventually it went up to £140,000 or £142,000. For how many of these aircraft are we paying £142,000 apiece? If we are paying that amount for the unfinished aircraft, as well as for those that are completed, to whom do those unfinished aircraft belong? Who is to use the material and equipment? If money was paid out at that rate, why should the possibility of redundancy be used almost as a threat when the question of the completion or otherwise of these machines was being discussed? Surely out of the generous payments I have mentioned there should have been the possibility of giving some financial compensation to the workers, if any of them were to have been displaced, until such time as they could get alternative employment.
Further, I wonder whether we could be told on what basis we are paying for the conversion of these aircraft into freighters? One figure which has been mentioned is £60,000 apiece for conversion but in the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and in that made by the Minister in another place, it was said that this point still had to be negotiated. Does that mean to say that we are expected to pay possibly more than £60,000 apiece? Are we still on the cost-plus basis and, if so, will it lead us to the payment of more than £60,000 for modification to the fuselage when the entire aircraft originally was only to cost the country something like £75,000?
I hope the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) is taking into account that the original order for Tudors was reduced and that that reduction no doubt would increase the eventual cost of the airplane manufacturers.
That may well be the explanation, in which case I shall be grateful if I can have it from my own Front Bench, of whom I ask these questions, as I am entitled to do. I am not saying that my information is accurate—I do not know—but it is the sort of thing one hears.
The other matter in which I feel the Government should ask for some inquiry relates to the kind of investigation, and by whom the decision is made, about the level at which we should keep our manufacturing potential in this country. In the last Debate I asked for an authoritative committee to investigate this problem; from what we have learnt since I am sure there is some need for such a committee. Having decided that we must maintain a certain level of manufacturing potential, there would then arise the very important question of how the orders should be placed and how far the civil aviation operator in this country should be expected to carry the burden. We have not properly and thoroughly examined the question of how far the airline operator in this country can be expected to absorb the output of our manufacturing industry.
Mr. Donald Douglas, the head of the American firm giving evidence before President Truman's Commission, said that his firm had to sell no less than 300 D.C.6s before they could break on that particular model. The prototype cost him something between 14 and 15 million dollars, even though the D.C.6 was only an improved version of the D.C.4. If that is a fact, if we must have production of that quantity, on just that type, then we have to look at the position in comparison to the total requirements of the airline operator. A figure I have seen is that the whole of the airline operators in the entire world need only something like 400 machines per year for renewals and replacements. If that is so, then, quite clearly, it will be an uneconomic business to start to make so many prototypes of these big machines in this country because, there is not the market for them. I am worried lest we in this country have not properly considered this matter and worked out all its implications.
My time is short, otherwise I should have liked to ask about the arrangement by B.O.A.C. with Aer Lingus, a most extraordinary arrangement about which we have heard far too little in this House. I should also have liked to suggest, as far as private flying clubs are concerned, that, in view of the huge amount of public money poured into the manufacturing industry, we ought to be able to economise out of those millions to the extent of a few thousand pounds in order to encourage our private flying clubs, who would provide a useful market for a certain percentage of this country's manufacturing output. Probably the Minister has already looked into these matters. Certainly he has shown an energy and a grasp of detail in his new job that, if I may say so, we admire, and I would like to take the opportunity of wishing him well in his new post.
7.55 p.m.
Speaking as a passenger I should like to begin by saying a word or two of commendation to the air services on the way they have improved during the past three years. Whether on the Continent or the routes inside the United Kingdom, I do not think anybody could find a staff which is more obliging and more ready to help in any way—but, of course, if there are lots of money to spend I suppose that one should have a staff like that. Most of the time gained in flying is lost when one gets to the end of the flight, and the time taken in moving the luggage is sometimes very slow indeed. I think that a designer might make an improved lorry and steps which would prevent some of the accidents where people get broken arms when unloading luggage, and which would enable luggage to be unloaded from aircraft very much quicker.
I speak only from a very low level and when I speak to pilots, engineers and other members of the staff I always take very good care not to tell them that I am a Member of Parliament, because if I did so, they would immediately dry up. But there is no doubt that there is very great disquiet and disappointment among pilots and engineers and passengers who fly a great deal about the turning down of the Tudor aircraft. At that level the popular superstition—it may be a superstition—is that the number of modifications has ruined the Tudor's chance of success. It was said to me that 120 modifications were put up within 110 days. Perhaps that was an exaggeration but I know that during the war, when the Stirling aircraft was built by Shorts, where some 50 per cent. of the capital is owned by the Government, and the Lancaster was built by Avro, it was said that Avro always put up a good fight against too many modifications but that in Shorts, which was owned by the Government, the people were ready to give way almost at once because no sensible person wants to quarrel with the bosses.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what advice is taken from the actual pilots who fly these machines. I suggest that a council of at least three pilots, two of whom are regularly in the air, might be called in at times for their opinion and that as much use as possible should be made of their advice. I have heard that it is very difficult sometimes for pilots to change from one aircraft to another because of the alteration of the position of the instruments on the panel. I am not an expert on this, because when I learned to fly there was not an instrument on the panel in front of me. But I believe that the altimeter, the airspeed indicator and the oil pressure gauge, at any rate, should be in the same position on the panel in every aircraft, so that the pilot can automatically look at it when he is flying at night, landing his machine or listening to orders from the ground.
It was said to me the other day of Henry Ford, who did so well in production, that when somebody asked him for a modification in the colour he said, "The customer can order whatever colour he likes so long as it is black." I believe it might help a lot of the British aircraft manufacturers if they worked on those lines. There is another slogan which I would mention to the Parliamentary Secretary. I remember that on the door of a firm in Calcutta there was a big notice facing one which said:
8.1 p.m.
From speeches by hon. Members opposite and from the Conservative Press one might think that civil aviation was in very sore straits, but I do not subscribe to that view. I think that was true at one time. It was dismally so before the war when hon. Members opposite were in power and they left an aerodrome like the field at Croydon as London Airport. But they did one thing, they placed the privately owned airlines under State control. They did in fact nationalise privately owned airlines and created B.O.A.C. I do not blame them for the fact that there was no progress in civil aviation during the war nor for the Tudor II, which was ordered by the Coalition Government; but I do blame them, particularly the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), for continually criticising people in the Corporations and in civil aviation to-day and in some cases for misrepresenting the facts. As an example, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has just stated that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had grown from 300-odd to 11,000, but he knew that that was a mischievous and very wrong statement—
I did expressly say "with the taking over of the airfields." I put in those words to explain how the increase to 11,000 had taken place. We do not believe they should have been taken over, but that they should be operated by municipalities, as many were before.
I am glad to accept the explanation, but the hon. Member said that that was an example of the Ministry of Civil Aviation staff rising in a phenomenal manner. I believe no airline can operate commercially and successfully without the right aircraft and if it has the right aircraft it cannot operate successfully with the wrong organisation. I suggest that B.O.A.C. may have the right organisation but the wrong aircraft, whereas B.E.A. undoubtedly have the right aircraft, but I suspect they have the wrong organisation. British American Airways have a bit of both, I think.
Aircraft is the most prominent subject that has been dealt with by every hon. Member who has taken part in the Debate so far. They are certainly the crux of the operation problem of airlines. I do not wish to say much about the Tudor II. I think it ought to die, but, like everyone else who agrees that it should be a corpse, I also propose to give it a little kick as I pass it. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) mentioned the cost as £140,000. I do not quarrel with that; I take it that is the cost of overheads, materials, wages and a reasonable profit for the company. But, the nation having paid all that, I want to know whether it now owns the aircraft and whether we can reduce it to salvage and sell the engines if we want to do so. I hope my hon. Friend will give an answer to that question, as it interests quite a lot of people.
I was a little concerned to see that the Tudor IV was to be operated by British South American Airways. I was concerned because I thought it was now out of operation as a passenger liner since the unfortunate and tragic crash. But if it is now to carry passengers, I would like to know why it has been decided that it is safe to carry passengers. I do not for one moment suggest that it is not safe but I want someone to tell me why it is now considered satisfactory, and whether a certificate of airworthiness has been reissued.
We know that the question of ordering is now before the Cabinet, or will be shortly. There are strong opinions on this matter. In my view it is not just a question of the operator being in touch with the manufacturer. Many manufacturers hate to think that the operators will come to them and ask for a different kind of window or this, that or the other. It may be that the Minister of Civil Aviation should order direct, instead of the Ministry of Supply. I would like that to be done so long as it did not mean another technical department in the Ministry of Civil Aviation because already we have a very large department in the Ministry of Supply for Service aircraft and I am afraid there would be awful duplication. I hope my hon. Friend will have a word to say on that.
I wish to refer to a remark I made in the House some time ago. I asked why we could not have one standard type of transport plane for service and civil aviation. If we could only standardise such an aircraft as bombers were standardised during the war when we made Lancasters, we would get an output worthy of the aircraft industry as a whole. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has mentioned the Hermes but I doubt very much whether, if he were in a position of responsibility, he would order the Hermes as our sole type when it is untried commercially, rather than have in hand a number of tried aircraft like the Sky-master.
The Government have ordered 25.
Yes, I know, but I question whether the hon. Member woud be content to have all his aircraft of the one untried type, rather than a proportion of his fleet being tried aircraft.
The hon. and gallant Member should realise that we have the Handley Page Hastings—the military version of the Hermes IV—
Yes, and a substantial order should be placed for that particular aircraft for both civil and Service needs, with the modifications necessary for the civilian side, and it should be mass-produced, not necessarily by one firm. This is a different problem from the short term one of getting quickly in operation some tried and proved type like the Skymaster.
I wish now to say a good word for the State-owned Corporations. We have B.O.A.C., the largest, led by Whitney Straight who was a war pilot of great distinction and who had great experience in running transport undertakings. If he can manage to cut down the de luxe B.O.A.C. organisations overseas, particularly in America and get them to hustle with the move of the maintenance base from Dorval, Montreal, to this country, then he would achieve some economy. So far as British European Airways are concerned, I believe they will make a loss in running services in this country. I do not think that matters provided that the accounts show the reason. It is surely for this House to say whether we are to run air lines in this country at a loss but in the public interest, and if we accept that as being so, it is the beginning and the end of the matter. But the Corporations must not, if they are to operate successfully, have upon their heads the responsibility of having to run services which cannot possibly pay. British South American Airways have now appointed as their chief executive Brackley, a man who was a commercial pilot and has come up from the bottom. We wish him great success and I hope that the shipping interests represented on his board are not too strong for him.
I doubt whether civil aviation will pay for many years in this country. We must accept that fact. I do not doubt that in the next 10 years, we shall expend £100 million on aviation and it may be that it is right that we should lose that sum. We must look at the matter from a defence point of view as well as from the actual operating point of view. If we are to lose that sum then the money will have been well spent if we extend, improve and develop our civil aviation and British aircraft. It should be remembered that in civil aviation, money is not only being spent on these corporations but also with the aircraft manufacturers. It is not just a question of increasing fares, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in another place rather stupidly suggested. It is, if anything, a question of reducing our fares so that civil aviation may come within the reach of all and not just a few.
There is no black magic in operating aircraft. No country has personnel with greater experience than we in this country possess, but the country should be told the truth that civil airlines for many years will not pay. We must accept that fact in this House and the people of the country must accept that fact. Finally, on the point of regularity and safety these Corporations of ours are second to none in the world. The ground organisation is in my judgment much better than anywhere on the Continent or even in America. Even in the small details we lead. Our colour schemes are better, our blues are bluer than Air France. Our sandwiches are thinner than any produced by K.L.M., our hostesses are better and blonder than any Pan America and in every other way we are leading, irrespective of what is said by our critics.
I would humbly say one word to the new Minister, and I do so with a certain amount of trepidation because I am connected with the largest and the most successful charter company in this country. I would say to the Minister that he is the Minister of the Crown for civil aviation in this country, and is not only interested in, and concerned with the Corporations. I feel that he should recognise that our pilots in charter companies speak the same language as the Corporation pilots and that we are all flying the same flag. Again, as an hon. Member opposite has said, we have aero clubs which have to look to the Minister. This is one great enterprise which we cannot afford to let go down; it is in the interest of the security of this country. There is room for all in the air, and if the Minister will watch and help all sides of this great industry, then we shall soon lead the world in Civil Aviation.
8.15 p.m.
In view of the shortness of this Debate I will confine myself to asking the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions which are important in trying to clear this muddled and confused picture. The Government have got themselves into such a muddle that until the other day they had not the slightest idea how to use the Tudor II. Last Wednesday, in another place, the Minister of Civil Aviation rather congratulated himself on the fact that he had found a solution, which was to convert a large number of these Tudor IIs into what he called pressurised Tudor IV freighters. He was so delighted with this idea that he went on to say that pressurised freighting is an entirely new business which offered important prospects as a valuable addition to our air transport services.
That is all very well, but I understand that at a Press conference last week the chief executive of B.O.A.C., in reply to a certain question, said there were two main advantages of pressurised freighting. The first advantage lay in the carriage of livestock and the second in the preventing of corks popping out of bottles. How much demand is there for the carriage of livestock? Is there sufficient demand to justify the expensive conversion of these Tudor IIs into the pressurised Tudor IV freighter. As regards the popping of corks from bottles, I can well imagine that particular matter would form the subject of an admirable debate between Colonel Chinstrap, on the one hand, and the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) on the other. I cannot imagine, however, that it could be really a serious reason for saying that pressurised freighting opened up an entirely new business and "offers important prospects as a valuable addition to our transport system."
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell the House exactly what are the uses of these pressurised air freighters. There may be excellent uses but they are difficult to visualise. I do not believe that even the Avro workers themselves, whom hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned to protect, would be particularly pleased if they thought that this was just an excuse for keeping them going and that in fact these pressurised freighters would be perfectly useless and would merely be an additional burden upon the taxpayer when they had been converted. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us more about that.
Secondly, I should like to know more about these Canadairs? Are they standard aircraft or not? The Parliamentary Secretary said in the House the other day that the delivery date depended on whether they were to be standard aircraft or whether certain modifications were to be carried out to suit the particular requirements of B.O.A.C. These aircraft are not new. They have been operating for some years in Canada. Surely, it must by now have been decided what the fare paying passenger wants in the way of comfort, etc.
If the delivery of these aircraft is to be delayed considerably by the addition of little alterations to the specification of B.O.A.C. the whole point of these machines disappears because they are purely a stop-gap. We had the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that they will be nothing more than aircraft to fill a temporary gap. If we do not get them very soon the whole point of having them will disappear. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that the provision of the aircraft is not going to be delayed by unnecessary and fiddling modifications.
I should like to know why, having decided to abandon the Tudor II on the Empire routes, and judging by the Courtney Committee Report, the Government were quite right in so doing, they did not immediately order more Hermes? If the Hermes is suitable for the Empire routes why did they not increase the order from 25 to whatever is the number required, instead of ordering the Canadair? There may be very good reasons. It may be that the range of the Hermes is insufficient for the long stage hops on the Empire route. I do not know, but I think the House and country is entitled to know why Canadairs were chosen instead of ordering more Hermes.
I should like to know whether there are any plans for opening up the Pacific route from Australia to California, and if so, what aircraft it is proposed to use on that route? I understand that B.O.A.C. have plans to open up that route but I do not know what aircraft they propose to use. It seems to me that we have not an aircraft except the Constellation—
And the Boeing.
That is another point. The point I was trying to make is that I hope B.O.A.C. are not intending to use the Canadair by going all the way up to Alaska, and across the Behring Straits, particularly in competition with the Americans, whose first stop is Hawaii, and so on. That is not only crazy from an economic point of view, but it would make our airline a laughing stock. If we are relying on the Boeing that seems to me as shadowy a picture as the rest. We do not know if the Boeing is any good, or when, indeed, we are to get them.
I should also like to know about "Project X" and why it was that about 18 months ago the Government turned down the project of putting the Bristol Centauras engine into the Constellation, instead of waiting until now and buying an aircraft which is not going to attract the public either because it is British or because it is best? Why was it that 18 months ago we turned that down? I. understand that Lockheeds offered very advantageous terms at that time when the Constellation cost very much less than now. I understand also that there was no particular technical difficulties attached to it.
If we were proposing to abandon, at any rate for the time being, the policy of "Fly British," if we were forced to do so, it seems to me the Government should have made up their minds to do so 18 months ago and taken a bold decision. But by vacillation and weakness, and by a complete lack of unanimity within the Government, the opportunity was missed. Now it is too late, not only because the price of Constellations has considerably increased, but also because it would be at least 18 month before we could get the first one. I say, therefore, that the Government have missed the bus completely.
We all regret very much the decision to abandon, even for the time being, the "Fly British" policy. It may be necessary now, and I am not saying that it is not. What I am saying is that surely the Government were in a position to know 18 months ago that the Tudor II was not a competitive aeroplane, and was in a position to take a decision then to buy an aeroplane which at least would have given us the best aeroplane in the world. With the Bristol Centauras engine it would have been better than the standard American aircraft. We should have been able to attract the dollar paying customer whose custom is vital to our economy and to compete on their own ground with the Constellations of any other airline. Had we done that it would have been worth while abandoning for the time being the "Fly British" policy.
But what has happened now is that we have merely bought an aeroplane, apologetically, and late in the day, which, in a few years time, will fail to attract the customer because it is neither British nor best. At the same time, we have built this large number of Tudor II's for which we have now no possible use except as this pressurised freighter, for which again there is no use except to prevent corks popping out of bottles. In other words, we have the worst of all worlds. I think that the Government must bear the responsibility for their lack of decision and lack of unanimity in delaying the moment when we had to abandon the "Fly British" policy until it was too late to buy good aeroplanes and we had to make do with second best. I would make one final plea.
In all the vagueness and confusion of our discussions about the types of aircraft, and so on, we are very often apt to lose sight of what to me is by far the most important consideration. That is, what does the passenger want? For what will the passenger pay money? What would attract the custom of the passenger? That is the important consideration. There is only one person who knows the answer and that is the operator himself. It is the duty of the operator to attract the custom of the fare-paying passenger. It remains his duty, whether he is a socialised operator or free enterprise operator. But how can he possibly go out to attract the fare-paying passenger if he is continually interfered with by the Government and not even allowed to say what aircraft he thinks will attract the fare-paying passenger?
I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). It is irritating enough when one's thunder is stolen by one's hon. Friends on this side of the House, but when it is stolen by hon. Members on the other side it is even more so. However, this instance of stolen thunder is gratifying to this extent, that the hon. Member for Keighley speaks as one who has held the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and so as one whose words carry additional weight with the House. I hope they carry additional weight with the Government, because he is absolutely right. The only way to please the passenger is to allow the operator, who knows what pleases the passenger, to deal directly with the manufacturer.
We all hope that, before very long, we shall see our airlines, whether they are restored to freedom, free from the shackles of nationalisation, or whether they are not, operating a fleet of entirely British aircraft. To my mind, the policy of "Fly British" does not go far enough. Our policy should be to build the best and fly it. I feel quite confident that we can build the best. I feel quite confident that in a very few years we shall be leading the world. But we must give our industry and our operators a free hand to get on with the job. The Government must stop interfering. The operators are the people who know and, given their heads, they will produce the goods.
8.31 p.m.
I must declare that I have no special knowledge of civil aviation, and I propose to confine my remarks to the report of the inquiry into the Tudor aircraft. This may constitute only a small section of the whole field of British civil aviation, but it is an important one for the many thousands of workers in Lancashire whose livelihood depends on the future development of the Tudor. Whilst the tension has been eased somewhat by the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary some days ago, those workers are still perturbed as to what is likely to happen in the future. The report in the White Paper, Cmd. 7478, is ample evidence that all is not well with our British civil aviation position. That report makes melancholy reading, and gives a picture of hesitancy, uncertainty and vacillation which does not speak well for the future. There is scarcely a page in the Report in which criticism is not implied. The first condition that ought to be insisted upon is that such a state of affairs ought to cease.
It may be admitted—and it may be argued—that civil aviation is yet only in its infancy, but that same argument applies equally well to all other countries besides our own. What I find myself asking is, how can any firm make an aeroplane if it is to be faced with almost impossible conditions. As noted in the B.O.A.C. and the Tudor dispute, the hundreds of modifications and alterations requested were fantastic, and such a policy will not get us anywhere at all. One could almost assume, having in mind the total number of alterations requested—many, in my opinion, having read the report closely, were not essential at all—that there was a desire to prevent the Tudor 'plane from becoming a successful British aircraft.
I am prompted to ask one or two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. Are the 22 Canadair machines ordered by B.O.A.C. of standard design? If they are not of standard design, what is the delivery date for the special specifications? Will the Canadairs be subject to the same tropical tests as the Tudor II had, before the order is confirmed? Is it possible to obtain a more detailed account of the manner in which the estimated profit of £5,000,000, when the Canadairs are used, was arrived at? I ask these questions because I think that they are of profound importance. Furthermore, will there be parallel tests for aircraft other than British aircraft?
I personally refuse to accept the position which is implied that our designers, technicians, engineers and others on the production line are in any way inferior to any in the world. We had to rely on them in 1940, and they always did a first-class job for us. We ought to have a true and complete picture of what the actual position is at the present time, and then we should know where we were going, and what we want, and how best to get it. We can still say "Buy British," which is a first-class motto. I ask that this House should be given an assurance that so far as possible the Government are determined to profit from past experience.
Finally, I suggest that they should give our people a "fair do," and preference, if at all possible. It may be argued that the aircraft industry, or civil aviation, is still in its infancy, as I have already said; that there is a wide and tremendous field of development possible; that it is going to cost a lot of money, and, maybe, many millions will have to be sunk in subsidies to place this industry on its feet; but I am sure that every one in this House wants to feel that when this industry is placed on its feet, its legs will be sturdy enough to enable it to march forward at the head of the world, as it has done in the past.
8.37 p.m.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) on his frankness. It is very pleasing to hear a Member put his point to his own side in the way that he did. I should like to declare my interest as chairman of an air charter company, like the hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock), who is also interested in a charter company. I am sorry that he is not in his place, because I wanted to refer to one or two of his remarks.
He painted a very dismal picture about the future of aviation, and its inability to make profits. He thought that there was no hope of aviation making any profits. I would like to say to him, having read the report of his own company in the financial column of one of the evening newspapers two or three weeks ago, that I imagine that it made very pleasant reading for him and his co-directors. I do not take the gloomy view that aviation is going to lose packets of money for years to come. We know that in Holland, the K.L.M. today is making money. In the first four months of this year, it was up on its estimated profits considerably. We know that the Belgians are making money; and even in America, where great losses have been made, those losses are steadily being reduced. We must recall that the American network of airlines covers the whole world, and a vast network in the continent of North and South America are running a very great service in that country.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) made reference to the question of payments to manufacturers vis-á-vis modifications, and I hope that I misunderstood him when I understood him to say that firms were perhaps delaying producing the finished articles because they were well paid for modifications. I hope that I am wrong, because if he was referring to A. V. Roe, which is on the edge of my constituency—and I frequently visit them at Woodford—the impression which I obtained was that the people there, from the top to the bottom, are dead keen to get their aircraft out flying. There is no question of aircraft being delayed because the firm can make a little extra money—taking up valuable space in the sheds, with overheads going on—when they want to get on with new types and make progress. I think it is quite wrong to make that statement to the House, which gives quite a wrong impression.
When the Brabazon Committee sat during the war years they had a most difficult task, and I am not really blaming them for the steps they took at that time. On the information at hand when we were busy fighting the enemy they had lo produce specifications for new types of aircraft. However, they must take a small measure of responsibility for our position today, because in my view, many of the decisions at which they arrived were wrong. For example, too many types of aircraft were ordered. Nevertheless, it is no good the Government contending that they have taken over a legacy from the Coalition Government; too often is it suggested that the Government have taken over this legacy, and that it is everybody's fault except theirs. The fact is, the Government have been in power exactly three years now, and have had plenty of time to examine this question and decide whether or not the aircraft were suitable. I shall refer later on to my views on the Tudor.
The difficulty has been that in two years we have had three Ministers at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. If a business had three managing directors in two years the chances are they would be in Carey Street explaining what had gone wrong. I am glad that the recent change has been made, because, frankly, I had no confidence whatever in the ability of Lord Nathan as Minister of Civil Aviation. No doubt he is a very good lawyer, but he was unsuitable for the position of Minister of Civil Aviation, and I frequently felt sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary who, in this House, had to "carry the can" for the mistakes at the Ministry. I feel that the new Minister, who is well known to us all, will tackle the job in a quite different way, and I personally wish him the very best of luck.
I always think that these civil aviation Debates are quite unlike any other Debates in the House. Many of us have spent our adult lives in civil aviation, and have the industry and the well-being of the airlines at heart; we want to see civil aviation work. However, when blunders have been made, it is our duty, as the Opposition, to point out where we think mistakes have occurred. That is what we are doing today. The Courtney Report—which was very fair but took too long to produce; it should have been ready two or three months ago—is a condemnation of the Government's handling of civil aviation. There is no doubt at all about that; it is conclusive. B.O.A.C. insisted on far too many modifications to the Tudor II, some of them completely unnecessary.
It is inconceivable that the customer who orders an aeroplane can go along, on two different occasions, and say he wants to lengthen the aircraft, to put 10½ feet on the fuselage, and to expand its diameter. I wonder what would happen in the ship building business if Cunard's went along on two occasions while the ship was being built and said "We want to lengthen it"? Obviously, the design had been worked out, and it would wreck this particular plane to extend its dimensions. I blame the manufacturers to the extent that they should have refused categorically to carry out these modifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) cited the example of the furnishings and interior lay-out, and that is typical of what has happened.
We now have what are called "industrial designers," and I am very suspicious of that class of expert which has crept into industry: departments are created, little empires are built up, with assistants and secretaries, and that delays finishing the job. Science has to be brought into business, but we can still get along without all these people making jobs for themselves and saying that science must be allowed to arrange the colour scheme and the shape of the windows. It is my experience that most of the passengers who are not pilots go to sleep in a plane, and it is only experienced pilots who sit looking out of the window, wondering what is going to happen.
I should like to know who insisted on the modifications being carried out. Are they still being employed by B.O.A.C., because if they are they ought to be fired? Someone must accept the responsibility, and I hope that action is being taken by the Corporation in that respect. Will the cost of these modifications be borne by B.O.A.C. or the Ministry of Supply? If the cost is to be borne by the Ministry, it will give a false impression of the running of B.O.A.C. It will mean that they will get away with it.
It always happens, whenever a large aeroplane is ordered, that for the first year of its life when it comes into operation it gives trouble. I have yet to know of a large aeroplane—I am not referring to the Mosquito or similar aircraft but to four-engined aeroplanes—to which this does not apply. When the Constellation was brought out the military authorities in the United States said it was a terrible aircraft. They looked upon it as a mongrel, and said it would not work, and here it is looked upon now as the best airliner in the world. If instead of insisting on these modifications, B.O.A.C. had got hold of one or two Tudors and filled them with freight and mail and took them to different climates for six months or a year, the "bugs" would have been got out of them and we should have had a good airliner for the North Atlantic and Empire routes.
Will the hon. and gallant Member tell the House why he thinks this is the responsibility of B.O.A.C., if B.O.A.C. are to be a commercial organisation?
My information is that B.O.A.C. have insisted on modifications.
I meant the responsibility for flying these aircraft for six months or a year as the hon. and gallant Member has suggested.
Whether it is the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Civil Aviation or B.O.A.C. who are responsible for getting the aircraft into the air, the fact remains that they are not flying because they had to be modified, and that if there had been no modifications, the aircraft would be flying much sooner. The Tudor would have been modified later on to take a tricycle under-carriage and would have been looked upon as a modern aircraft. As it is, it is a very sad story.
Reference has been made to the question of fitting Bristol engines into Constellations. That would have been the right decision 18 months ago had the Government decided to spend their money and order what was to be the best aircraft. We might have seen Bristol engines being flown throughout the world in Constellations. Are the Quantas Airline going to operate Constellations in competition with Canadair aircraft ot B.O.A.C? There is no doubt that the Constellation is the better aircraft. Are Ceylon Aviation also going to operate Constellations in competition with Great Britain?
Last week, when the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement regarding Canadair, I put a question as to what would be the reduced losses or profits to B.O.A.C. when these aircraft went into operation. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us the figure of £5 million for five years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) asked whether it was a net profit, to which the Parliamentary Secretary said "Yes" after some hesitation. I am not clear what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by a net profit of £5 million for five years, and I should be very pleased if he would explain what he had in mind, and whether it is really a net profit taking all charges into consideration.
The Chief Executive of B.O.A.C, Mr. Whitney Straight, who is a personal friend of mine, has been in this particular job for 12 months. No doubt he knows airline operation as well as anyone in the world, but I am disappointed that he has not cut down his staff. I hoped that when he went there his first job would be to call the heads of the departments together and ask them where economies could be made, and that if he did not get the right suggestions, he would have told them what they were going to do. If he were in a charter business, he would have to show a profit, because there would be no question of drawing on Treasury for finance. If, nine months ago, Mr. Whitney Straight had cut his staff by at least one-third, if he had cut out the "dead wood" in the middle grades—I think it is being done now to some extent, but not enough—I believe we should get somewhere near a profit.
Further, in Canada "Constellations" are being serviced at Dorval, because we are told there is no hangar accommodation in this country. At the end of the year, it is said, they will be housed at Filton, when the job will then be tackled. That is sheer nonsense. These aircraft would have been brought here for servicing months ago had B.O.A.C. got some priority for ex-R.A.F. hangars, put them together at Heathrow, and improvised for a year. This is being done at Schipol. The Dutch went in there after the war with 2,000 bomb holes on the airfield. The managing director could find his way to the aerodrome only by the aid of the stub lamp posts. They were servicing their "Constellations" in the open, throughout the winter. I believe that the representatives of B.O.A.C. prefer to live in Canada rather than in this country at present. There is great reluctance on their part to come back and work here under a Labour Government. I ask the Government to bring these people back, to improvise temporary cover for the aircraft, and save £500,000 in dollars. I ask them not to take "No" for an answer.
I am delighted to see that the order for the Saunders Roe 45 flying boat has been increased. I think that decision is right, and that it will, over the years, give us a lead over the rest of the world. Nobody is tackling the large flying boat, except Britain. In countries like Greece and Egypt, through which we have to pass on the Empire routes, they cannot afford expensive runways, costing millions of pounds. We shall come to the time when we shall have to say that we cannot build bigger aircraft because there will not be adequate runways, and that is when the flying boat will come into its own. It will be able to use sheltered waters, and when there is a load of 300,000 lb. gross weight there will be a real saving in being able to use a flying boat, without an undercarriage and all its mechanism. There is need for every encouragement in priorities and materials to be given to Saunders Roe, so that they may press ahead with this work and I hope the Government will give the firm every assistance.
Like other Members, I should like to know what is the position of the Brabazon? I have not seen it—I would like to—but I believe that something like £10 million has been spent on that project, including runways, hangars and aircraft. It is a staggering sum when we recall that the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary" cost considerably less than that before the war, and realise the work they have done for that money. It is appalling to think that we must invest all this money, if we are not to get a real return for it. No doubt there will be some return from research, which will assist the manufacturers, but are we right to continue with this project because of the tremendous amount of money which has to be spent each month?
There are far too many Government Departments dealing with civil aviation. If only they could be reduced, if only there was one head who could make a real decision when necessary—not the Prime Minister; he has not the time to go into all the difficulties of civil aviation—that would remove many of our present troubles. The operator must be allowed to select his own aircraft, provided he is competent to do so. If foreign aircraft are required B.O.A.C. should go to the Bank of England, like any other commercial enterprise, and state their case. They should be on exactly the same footing as any other commercial enterprise.
I think it is regrettable that civil aviation should always be "got at" through the House of Commons, but I can see the necessity for that until we get a proper system. That is the present fault. I do not see how any enterprise can work successfully when it is "got at" by way of Questions and Debates, and the people concerned have their initiative undermined. The present system is completely wrong. There is the Ministry of Supply whom the manufacturers I believe support. They may have very good reasons for supporting the Ministry of Supply probably because of the good orders for military aircraft which they get. I am a great supporter of the aircraft industry, but I do not believe that we should give all this power to the Ministry of Supply because the aircraft manufacturers like it. I believe that one thing is necessary, that is for the operator to deal direct on a commercial basis as already outlined and there should be penalty clauses, firm delivery dates, and so on.
The relations between the Ministry of Supply and B.O.A.C. were very unhappy for a time although I believe they have been considerably improved. At one time, members of B.O.A.C. had to get permission to visit the factories where the aircraft were made. That was intolerable and did not allow for happy working. There has been a lack of leadership at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Lord Nathan has not given the lead where he could have done, and if he found himself unable to act when he thought it was right he should have resigned and by so doing would have rendered the country a great service in making his point.
The Minister of Civil Aviation sent for the heads of charter companies recently, and I do not think I am breaking a confidence if I explain what took place at the conference. Eight of us went along one morning to discuss the future of the Tudor II, and we were told that we could have them much cheaper and that the cost would be around £80,000 each to operate the aircraft as freighters. Nothing was said about the carriage of bottles, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward). It took two minutes for all of us to decide that it just was "not on," and my reaction to the Minister's statement was that if he would amend Section 23 of the Act and allow us to operate our aircraft we would consider it. He said there was no intention of amending the Act or of changing the interpretation. We then said, "Good morning" and left. It is an appalling thing that free enterprise should be asked to operate aircraft with no facilities to operate these aircraft on scheduled routes. Anybody who took on this would be "bust" in a couple of weeks.
I hope the Hermes IV, in which I have great confidence, will be delivered on time early next year, and if proved to be successful that the order will be increased. This aircraft was tried out in the military version as a Hastings, and I believe gave good service and might bring to our country orders from abroad. Let us give it every encouragement from now onwards. I am concerned about the result on British exports of ordering the Canadairs. In 1947, £25 million worth of aircraft materials were sold overseas, and that was a great contribution to our export effort. Of course, the aircraft industry use a very small amount of materials in the finished article compared with some other industries. Already, I am told that the representatives of Canadairs are out all over the world trying to sell Canadairs on the strength of the order by this country. We have got to look out, otherwise it will be difficult to recover our position in future years.
The Government placed this Act on the statute book three years ago, and recently I read again words used by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) in January, 1946. His closing words on that occasion make most astonishing reading now. This is what he said:
If that is the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, there is nothing in that Act that I would reject now.
All I can say is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I have not seen such an enormous muddle taking place even with this Government as in the case of civil aviation. I hope something will be done to put it right, because we are not going to get out of the mess by ordering 22 Canadairs. I suggest that we scrap all the committees which are in operation and set up one committee of inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission to investigate the matter, and if that is done within six months, the Government will have the best advice on what is to be the next step. If we continue on the present basis, we shall have a Conservative Government in power, and then we shall have to take the necessary steps to put civil aviation on to its feet.
9.1 p.m.
I am grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite for the opportunity of this Debate, brief though it has been. I join with them in the hope that we shall have an opportunity for a much longer Debate when we shall be able to deal with the general policy of civil aviation, and I hope that it will be in the comparatively near future.
In spite of what has been said from the benches opposite this evening, there is a story of civil aviation in this country, since the war, of which this country and the Corporations have every right to be proud. In fact, I wish that some folk at some time would have a word to say for their own country rather than for the foreigner. It seems strange that we, from these benches, should be having to stand here and chide hon. Gentlemen opposite for being more ready to praise the foreigner than to give credit to their own friends for the work they do in their own country.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Press of this country as a whole, ought to get a clear idea of what they want the rôle of the air corporations to be. We have been led to believe from speeches in this House by hon. Members, from articles in the Press and from speeches in the country, that the function of the Corporations is that of commercial undertakings and that they should operate as such; yet, in the very next breath, hon. Gentlemen opposite ask the Corporations to subordinate their own immediate commercial requirements to the interests of the aircraft industry, or of particular routes, or to any and every vested interest it is possible to name. In one breath hon. Gentlemen say that the Corporations must be commercial undertakings, operating under the test of a balance sheet by which they must be judged. In the very next breath the Corporations have to subordinate all considerations to the interests of the aircraft industry, or in respect of certain uneconomic routes, or of operations which are not the function of the Corporations.
That is unfair and unreasonable. It is distinctly unfair to the men, many of whom have been praised in this House this evening. It is unfair that those men who give their lives and energy to civil aviation, should be criticised in the way they are criticised for performing the functions allotted to them in the Corporations and for not being able to operate as they might have done on commercial undertakings.
I should like to have been much more mild this evening. I should like to have buried the question of the Tudor and all that is associated with it. It is a sorry story. I am not going to attempt to justify it in any shape or form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen say "Hear, hear." If they twit me, I am going to hit back.
Hurrah.
In regard to the ordering procedure for civil aircraft, what hon. Gentlemen allege to be the muddle of this Government is, in fact, the muddle of their Government. I do not blame that Government. Let us just trace the history of the Tudor. First, it was in 1943 that Avro's submitted the proposals for the larger version of the Tudor I which is known as the Tudor II. By April, 1944, or when the specifications were dealt with, the all-up weight of the aircraft was 70,000 lbs. It was still wartime and still the Coalition Government. In October, 1944, the Coalition Government placed the first order for the Tudor II aircraft—30 of them for B.O.A.C.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was "our Government." Does that mean that the other side claim credit for the achievements of the Coalition? They are falsely claiming it. It was a joint Government.
I am just giving an instance. After all, the hon. Member for mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has been trying to place the responsibility for a very sad story—I will not say that it is not—entirely upon the shoulders of this Government in respect of happenings since 26th July, 1945. I am just showing that the story started a long while before 1945. The terms of the contract and the specifications were arranged and the first increases and the first actions by B.O.A.C. occurred while a Minister in the Coalition Government and not a Minister in this Government was responsible.
Who was the Minister at that time?
I would not like to place the responsibility. I think it was Lord Swinton, but I really do not know and ought not to say.
Then, in March, 1945, the order was increased to 79; this order was increased for the provision of aircraft for the Australians, the South Africans and the Argentinians. If it is said that all the responsibility for the modifications and the delay in the production of the aircraft rests with B.O.A.C.—I would not have said this had not an attempt been made by the Opposition to place the whole of the responsibility on B.O.A.C.—I think the manufacturer should take some measure of responsibility. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) was the only one who was generous enough to admit that the manufacturer had to take some measure of responsibility, but even he said that it was small. It was in March, 1945, that the order was increased by the Coalition Government in response to the orders from the Australians, the South Africans and the Argentinians. Those orders were cancelled in July, 1946.
Why did those foreign orders go by the board? Not because of B.O.A.C. They could not go by the board because of B.O.A.C., because B.O.A.C. had no responsibility for the technical departments of foreign operators. They went by the board because the manufacturer fell down on the delivery dates and the specifications. The aircraft was late and did not give the specified performance, and therefore the foreign operators cancelled their orders. The hon. Gentleman says now that when those orders from abroad were cancelled, His Majesty's Government ought to have said in 1946, "That is the end of the Tudor and we must cancel the orders for the British operator."
The Tudor II; not the Tudor IV.
The Tudor II. The hon. Member says that we ought to have cancelled them in 1946. What would the Opposition have said if, just because Q.E.A., South African Airways and the Argentine Airways had cancelled their order, His Majesty's Government had cancelled theirs on behalf of the State Corporations?
Surely, we have test pilots who produce statistics and performance figures?
Quite. I will deal with that. We will see what happened. Why was there delay? It was not because of B.O.A.C. The aircraft was flown in March, 1946, and went to Boscombe Down for its trials in July, 1946. It was returned from Boscombe Down, not by B.O.A.C., but by those who were responsible for carrying out the test for airworthiness, on the grounds that the aircraft required adjustment before it could be given its Certificate of Airworthiness. In fact it was not a satisfactory aircraft; most of the modifications about which hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of my hon. Friends have been led to complain by interests outside were not the responsibility of B.O.A.C. in any way, but of those responsible for the safety of the aircraft and the passengers who fly in them. The aircraft, after being amended, was sent back again in November, 1946, for further tests, and again returned to the manufacturers.
Then there was an unfortunate happening by which the designer and other persons revered in civil aviation were killed in the crash of the prototype, an accident over which they had no control and which was the responsibility of others. If, when that prototype crashed and certain persons were killed, we had cancelled the order, what would hon. Gentlemen opposite have said?
I am sorry to interrupt, but it was not a question of cancelling the Tudor order; it was a question of turning all the energies of the Government and the Corporation on to Tudor IVs and away from Tudor IIs.
If the hon. Gentleman presses me on that, the Tudor IV was a suggestion of the Corporation and not of the manufacturer or the Brabazon Committee. There was the Tudor I, not as satisfactory as it ought to have been but, as a result of suggestions made by the Corporation, its fuselage was lengthened and it became a much more satisfactory aircraft.
I know I shall be accused afterwards of damaging the aircraft industry, but folk outside this House and hon. Gentlemen inside it, do not worry about damaging the Corporations; the Corporations, however, have been very quiet, very dignified, and they have not replied to Press campaigns. We have such revered Members of this House as the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) taken in by the statements made in the Press and in the House about B.O.A.C. and B.O.A.C.'s attitude towards the aircraft and its manufacture. The Corporation has to take its share of responsibility, but equally the manufacturer and successive Governments have their shares too, and we accept it.
Would not the Minister agree that the Tudor did far too little flying in the period he talked about? Had it been got into the air and made to fly, the faults would have been found.
Yes, I agree; but that is the responsibility of the manufacturer. After all, one does not stop a prototype from going into the air and on flying tests because someone is considering whether to have the lavatory in the nose or the tail, or whether to have blue or brown furnishings. A prototype does not fly with the furnishings, and similar ramifications that follow the setting up of an aircraft. What really matters is the basic specification. It is true that B.O.A.C. required a change from round windows to square ones, or from square to round, whichever it was, but that did not stop the aircraft getting its Certificate of Airworthiness.
But surely the Minister will agree that it is not the job of the manufacturer other than the initial test? The job is to get operators to fly on routes in climates where it is expected to operate.
I agree, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that the most important part of this stage of aircraft operation is getting the bugs out of an aircraft. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has quoted K.L.M. and Sabena as making profits, but what do these airlines do? They wait until an aircraft has been proved in service; then they buy the best aircraft available regardless of its origin; then they fly it.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Corporations make a loss and are not acting on a commercial basis; yet, in the next breath, he says that the Corporations should accept full responsibility for the development-flying of new aircraft, the expense of engine troubles, and aircraft bugs of every shape and form. No credit has been given by any hon. Member opposite for what has already been done by the Corporations in that respect. Over £500,000 was the cost to B.E.A. for the development of the Viking, which some hon. Gentleman opposite will no doubt say is a credit to the private enterprise of Vickers. Hon. Members opposite chide B.E.A. for having lost money. But this half million is not, in fact, an operator's cost; it is not a cost that would have been borne by Sabena or by K.L.M.
Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, even today, K.L.M. are operating the D.C.6 and are having considerable trouble with it. It is not true to say that they take only aircraft which have been proved.
Not "only," but in the main they take aircraft which are proved, when costs will have been shouldered which here have fallen on the Corporations. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford chastised B.E.A. for not putting the Ambassador into operation. I agree with all the remarks of hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) and others who have paid a tribute to the de Havilland group. They are a credit to the aircraft industry. Their products are renowned throughout the world; they were before the war and will be in the future. The Ambassador is a first-class aircraft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is an aircraft on whose future we are all agreed. But that aircraft would never have been sold—it would never have gone into production—had not one of these State monopolistic Corporations which hon. Gentlemen opposite have decried taken the aircraft. No private enterprise firm would have ordered and taken it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—but the manufacturer would be only too pleased to continue with it. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.
I repeat, as a definite and a deliberate statement, that, unless B.E.A. had taken the aircraft, it would not have been produced and there would have been no possibility of the Ambassador being anything at all, at any time or anywhere. It is not coming into production for operation until 1952. Why? The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that B.E.A. ought to take it earlier. It is not being produced earlier because B.E.A. do not want it earlier. The reason for that is because they have taken the Vickers Viking, which cost a great deal of money initially—it cost, as I have already said, £500,000 during its first year of operation in development-flying.
Will hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the State Corporations should be so unbusinesslike as to incur very heavy capital expenditure, scrap the Viking before its utility has gone and then incur much heavier capital costs for the purchase and development of the Ambassador? What they are really asking is that we should buy an aircraft for £100,000, fly it for a couple of years, scrap it, buy another aircraft for another £100,000, fly it for a little while and then scrap it. Or did the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford mean that we should have a double fleet of aircraft in use for only half the time, and double the number of pilots and associated personnel?
As the Parliamentary Secretary has invited me to reply, let me express my meaning in this way. We hope that the Ambassador will be a very fine machine for export sales. I understand that it could be ready by January, 1950. Someone ought to be testing it in the air now, or as soon as it is ready, because we cannot ask a foreigner to do the testing for us.
I quite agree. The sooner I see the Ambassador in the air the better I shall like it; but let us see a little more of private enterprise amongst those who praise private enterprise.
Then amend the Act and enable charter companies to fly on scheduled routes with the Ambassador.
The Ambassador is a twin-engined aircraft suitable for European and medium-range activity. It is just the type of aircraft which charter people can buy, and, in fact, do buy. B.E.A. have placed their order and certain charter operators in this country have now followed their example.
I suggest that they take over a little earlier, do the development work and lose the money. But they do not, and what the hon. Member is asking is that B.E.A. should take the aircraft, bear the cost and, then when accounts are presented, they will chide the Corporations and the Government for having lost money, as they would call it, in the operation of airlines. The House and the country have to make up their minds whether the Corporations are in fact commercial undertakings. If they are not, we have no right to judge them by a commercial balance sheet. Hon. Members opposite want things both ways.
I wish the hon. Member for Mid-Bed-ford would give a little credit where it is due. He talked of private enterprise and the jet Viking which flew to Paris the other day. I am not going to detract from that achievement by one iota. Every credit is due to Vickers, but it was not private enterprise that was responsible. The Ministry of Supply provided the aircraft, paid for it and made the suggestion that the flight should be done on the day it was done. Private enterprise does not exist in the aircraft industry. For reasons which are pretty obvious the country as a whole provides for the activities of the aircraft industry. Whether this is right or wrong is a matter of argument.
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that during the war de Havillands produced the Mosquito against the wishes of the Government, an aeroplane which made a great contribution to winning the war.
I am glad the hon. and gallant Member made that interruption, because I ought to have qualified my statement. De Havillands are the only aircraft manufacturers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, prepared to give a firm price. They have given one for the D.H. 106, the most revolutionary type of aircraft, and they gave a price for it when it was on the drawing board. After all, some of us have had difficulty in getting a price for the conversion of a Tudor II to a Tudor IV.
I am afraid I have been carried away by interruptions by hon. Members opposite and have gone into realms I did not intend to enter. Questions were asked about the Canadair; the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford drew attention to the reply which I gave last week, that the date of delivery was dependent upon alterations in the specification. In my early days in office I was perhaps a little rash, and when one has once been rash one is more cautious afterwards. I was therefore cautious in my answer because if there were to be modifications that would naturally upset the general dates of delivery which had been given, and I had seen in the correspondence which passed through my hands that the date of delivery laid down by the Canadair people was subject to modification. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has rather chided us about this, but, within 60 hours of the announcement made by my noble Friend in another place, the initial contract, a Letter of Intent, was signed by B.O.A.C. with the manufacturer for delivery of the aircraft and for detailed specifications to be settled towards the end of August.
I ought to deal with a point which was partly dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, the increase of staff in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It is true, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has said, that in 1939 the Air Ministry Division which was dealing with civil aviation had a staff of 397 and that now the Ministry of Civil Aviation has a staff approaching 11,000. But was the hon. Member really being fair? All we had in 1939, the total credit from Tory Governments of the past, was a couple of pocket handkerchiefs, one at Croydon the other at Heston; both of which were grass fields. So much vision was displayed that we cannot now use these airfields because building was allowed right up to their perimeters. Moreover, in the rest of the country the municipalities had only grass fields. I am subject to correction, but so far as I know there was neither a State-owned nor municipally-owned aerodrome with hard runways in use anywhere for civil aviation when war broke out in 1939.
But at that time the aircraft did not demand such a runway. It was the war that brought that about.
I agree, and one who is as fair as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) would, I am sure, agree that it would have been a little more generous if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford had admitted that the whole condition of civil aviation has changed. To talk about these 11,000 people in the way that he did was rather unfair, and it will be read in the Press tomorrow morning as meaning clerks, etc., in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. That is not at all the case. These persons are the controllers of a very complicated system of air traffic control, wireless operators, operators of navigational aids, crash tender crews, etc. Of that 11,000 mentioned, 8,000 are persons who for Income Tax purposes and in wage negotiations would be termed industrial workers, and for the hon. Member to chide the Government about such an increase is wrong. No one will say that we must go back.
I wish to deal with a suggestion which has been made that the Tudor decision damages the British aircraft industry. It does not. After all, the Armstrong Siddeley group, of whom Avros are a part, declared a dividend the other day of 32½ per cent. No one need shed any tears for them. I am much more concerned about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) and for the pay packets of his constituents at the end of the week. The assertion that the Corporations do not want British aircraft is untrue. There are over 100 British aircraft on order to the value of £25 million, and they include the Hermes IV to which reference has been made, the DH 106, the S.R. 45, the
M.R.E. (Bristol 175), the Ambassador, the Marathon and the Brabazon I.
I am sorry that I cannot deal with the whole of the Debate or comment on all the subjects which have been mentioned. There have been many speakers and many subjects and I have only dealt with those which I thought the most important. I would join with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield in saying that the more we can remove civil aviation from the Floor of the House of Commons, and treat it as a job to do, as a transport job, the greater will be our service to aviation, to the aircraft industry and to those who desire to travel by air.
Question put, "That £68,189,793 stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes. 247; Noes, 104.
Division No. 278.] AYES. [9.30 p.m. Acland, Sir Richard Dodds, N N. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Adams, Richard (Balham) Driberg, T. E. N Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Dugdale, J (W Bromwich) Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Dumpieton, C. W Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Awbery, S. S. Durbin, E F. M Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Ayles, W. H. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Edwards, John (Blackburn) Jenkins, R. H. Bacon, Miss A Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Baird, J Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Balfour, A. Evans, Albert (Islington, W) Keenan, W. Barstow, P. G Evans, John (Ogmore) Kenyon, C Barton, C. Evans, S. N (Wednesbury) King, E. M. Battley, J. R. Ewart, R. Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Bechervaise, A E Fairhurst, F Kirby, B. V. Belcher, J. W. Farthing, W J Lang, G. Benson, G. Fernyhough, E Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Berry, H. Field, Capt. W. J Lee, F. (Hulme) Beswick, F. Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale) Forman, J. C. Leonard, W. Binns, J. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Leslie, J. R. Blackburn, A. R Freeman, J. (Watford) Lewis, (Bolton) Blenkinsop, A. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Lindgren, G. S Bottomley, A. G. Ganley, Mrs. C S. Logan, D. G Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Gibson, C. W Longden, F Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Gilzean, A. Lyne, A. W. Brook, D. (Halifax) Glanville, J. E (Consett) McAdam, W. Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Gordon-Walker, P C McAllister, G. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Grey, C. F McEntee, V. La T. Burden, T. W. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McGhee, H. G. Burke, W. A. Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly) Mack, J. D. Callaghan, James Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Carmichael, James Guest, Dr. L. Haden Maclean, N. (Govan) Champion, A. J. Gunter, R. J. McLeavy, F. Chetwynd, G. R Guy, W. H. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Cobb, F. A Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Macpherson, T. (Romford) Cooks, F. S. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mainwaring, W. H. Collindridge, F. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Collins, V. J. Hardy, E. A. Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield) Colman, Miss G. M Haworth, J. Mann, Mrs. J. Cook, T. F. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Herbison, Miss M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Corlett, Dr. J. Hewitson, Capt. M. Marquand, H. A. Cove, W. G. Hobson, C. R. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Crawley, A Holman, P. Mayhew, C. P. Daggar, G. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Medland, H. M. Daines, P. Hoy, J. Messer, F. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Middleton, Mrs. L Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Mikardo, Ian Delargy, H J Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Mitchison, G. R. Diamond, J Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Monslow, W. Dobbie, W. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Moody, A S.
Morgan, Dr. H B Royle, C. Tomlinson, Rt Hon G Morley, R Scollan, T Turner-Samuels, M. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Scott-Elliott, W Ungoed-Thomas, L. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Segal, Dr. S. Vernon, Maj. W F. Mort, D. L Sharp, Granville Viant, S. P. Moyle, A Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) Walkden, E Murray J. D. Shurmer, P Walker, G. H. Naylor, T. E. Silverman, J. (Erdington) Warbey, W. N Neal, H. (Clay Cross) Simmons, C. J. Watkins, T. E Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Watson, W M Oliver, G. H. Skinnard, F. W. Weitzman, D Orbach, M. Smith, C. (Colchester) Wells, W T (Walsall) Palmer, A. M F. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.) Pargiter, G. A. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W) Paten, J. (Norwich) Solley, L. J White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Pearson, A. Sorensen, R. W Whiteley, Rt. Hon W Peart, T F Steele, T. Wigg, George Perrins, W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. Platts-Mills, J. F. F Swingler, S Wilkes, L Popplewell, E. Sylvester, G. O Wilkins, W A. Porter, E. (Warrington) Symonds, A. L. Willey, F T. (Sunderland) Porter, G (Leeds) Taylor, R J. (Morpeth) Williams, J. L, (Kelvingrove) Price, M. Philips Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Williams, Ft W. (Wigan) Proctor, W T. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Williams, W. R. (Heston) Pryde, D. J Thomas, George (Cardiff) Woods, G. S. Pursey, Comdr. H Thomas Ivor (Keighley) Yates, V. F. Randall, H E. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Young, Sir R. (Newton) Ranger, J. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Younger, Hon Kenneth Reid, T (Swindon) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Rhodes, H. Thurtle, Ernest Mr. Snow and Richards, R. Timmons, J Mr. George Wallace. Robens, A Titterington, M F Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Tolley, L. NOES Agnew, Cmdr P. G Grimston, R V Odey, G. W Amory, D. Heathcoat Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge) Orr-Ewing, I L Baldwin, A E Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V Osborne, C Barlow, Sir J. Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon Sir D Peto, Brig. C. H. M Beechman, N. A Hogg, Hon Q. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Bennett, Sir P. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Poole, O. B S (Oswestry) Bossom, A C Hutbert, Wing-Cdr. N J Price-White, Lt -Col. D Bowen, R Hurd, A. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O Bower, N Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Raikes, H V. Boyd-Carpenter, J A Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.) Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G Keeling, E. H. Robinson, Roland Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W Kerr, Sir J. Graham Scott, Lord W Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Lambert, Hon G. Shephard, S. (Newark) Bullock, Capt M Law, Rt. Hon R. K. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W Byers, Frank Legge-Bourke, Mai E A H Stoddart-Scott, Col M Challen, C Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Strauss, Henry (English Universities) Channon, H Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Sutcliffe, H Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Lipson, D. L. Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne) Corbett, Lieut.-Col U (Ludlow) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Teeling, William Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford) Crowder, Capt John E McCallum, Maj. D Thornton-Kemsley, C N Darling, Sir W. Y. McFarlane, C. S. Turton, R H Dodds-Parker, A D Mackeson, Brig. H. R Wadsworth, G Dower, E L. G (Caithness) McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Wakefield, Sir W. W Drayson, G. B Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Walker-Smith, D Drewe, C. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Ward, Hon. G. R Dugdale, Maj Sir T (Richmond) Manningham-Buller, R. E Wheatley, Colonel M J (Dorset, E) Erroll, F J Marsden, Capt. A. White, J B. (Canterbury) Foster, J G. (Northwich) Marshall, D (Bodmin) Williams, C. (Torquay) Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Marshall, S H (Sutton) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P M Mellor, Sir J. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Gage, C Molson A. H E Young, Sir A S L. (Partick) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Gammans, L. D. Mott-Radclyffe, C E TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Gomme-Duncan, Col. A Nicholson, G. Mr. Studholme and Granville, E (Eye) Noble, Comdr A. H. P Major Conant.
It being after half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution under consideration:
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put and agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Department's Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.
[ For details of the remaining Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 22 nd July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 700–706.]
Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1948–49
Class I
Central Government and Finance
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class II
Foreign and Imperial
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class III
Home Department, Law and Justice
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class IV
Education and Broadcasting
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class V
Health, Housing, Town Planning, Labour and National Insurance
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class VI
Trade, Industry and Transport
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class VII
Common Services (Works, Stationery, &C.)
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates."
put, and agreed to.
Class VIII
Non-Effective Charges (Pensions)
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Class IX
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Class X
Supply, Food and Miscellaneous Services
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the oustanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Revenue Departments Estimates, 1948–49
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Ministry of Defence Estimate, 1948–49
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,"
put, and agreed to.
Navy Estimates, 1948–49
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Army Estimates, 1948–49
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Air Estimates, 1948–49
Question,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,"
put, and agreed to.
Ways and Means [22nd July]
Resolution reported:
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, the sum of £1,534,682,776 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.
Consolidation Fund (Appropriation) Bill
"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed.
National Service Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
9.44 p.m.
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I will, with the agreement of the Committee, take the remaining Clauses five or six at a time.
May I be guided by you on this matter, Major Milner?
Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
It is probably a point of guidance. This Bill is now before the Committee of the whole House, and if you take the Clauses three or four at a time how is it possible for an hon. Member to raise objections to any particular Clause?
I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point. If any hon. Member desires to intervene and rises in his place mentioning the Clause to which he desires to address himself, I shall be happy to call that particular Clause.
Clause 6.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
5 CLAUSE 6.—(Persons required to register.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the 3 Bill."
I wish to oppose this Clause and to argue that in a consolidation Bill of this sort a Clause relative to conscription to the Armed Forces should be repealed.
Any such argument would obviously be out of Order. It would be an endeavour to alter the law, whereas this is a consolidation Bill and the only question that arises on this Clause is whether the consolidation accurately represents the law on the subject.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 60.—(Repeals and Savings.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I want the Minister in charge of this Bill to give an explanation of Subsection (1), which states:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Acts specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule."
As far as I can gather the purpose of this Bill is to consolidate, and I should like to know how it is possible to repeal provisions of an Act in a Bill of this kind. If I were to suggest that any Section of an Act should be repealed it would be ruled out of Order on the grounds that I was attempting to alter the law, but apparently we are now being told, without any apparent difficulty, that it is possible to repeal an Act.
I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The matter is perfectly clear. It is necessary to repeal portions of the respective Acts which are re-enacted in this consolidation Bill. We cannot have two Acts dealing with the same subject matter, and it is necessary therefore to repeal the Acts which are to be re-enacted.
I appreciate that something may be left out in consolidation. The point of issue here is that it is not the whole Act that is to be repealed. It is only one part of it. In the Sixth Schedule the Royal Marines Act, 1948, is mentioned, and it states that Subsection (3) of Section 1 of that Act is to be repealed. I have no legal experience, but I have some experience of public affairs, and I feel it is only right that on an important Measure of this kind the Minister should explain why it is necessary to repeal one Subsection and not the whole of the Act.
I, too, should like to ask for an explanation on this point. I can understand the necessity for consolidating Measures dating back to 1939 to 1947, but why was it necessary for the House to spend some time, as it did recently, discussing the Royal Marines Act, 1948, when it is now stated that some of it is to be repealed? Does this not mean that the Government wasted the time of the House in introducing the Royal Marines Bill?
My hon. Friends seem to have misunderstood the position. This Act makes no change in the law. It simply brings together the numerous Acts which have been passed on this subject, for the convenience of those who have to deal with these questions. They will have one document before them instead of a number.
There is justification for the repeal of the whole of the Royal Marines Act, but why repeal only Subsection (3) of Section 1? I have here a copy of the Royal Marines Act, and Section 1 (3) says:
"The Royal Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve shall be deemed to be an auxiliary force within the meaning of the National Service Act, 1947; and sections three and four of that Act (which relate respectively to volunteer service in certain auxiliary forces in lieu of part-time service, and to the transfer of persons serving under that Act from one auxiliary force to another) shall have effect as if, in each of those sections, after the words 'the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve' there were inserted the words 'the Royal Marine Forces Volunteer Reserve'."
The rest of the Act still remains, and cannot be merged in this consolidation. If Section 1 (3) is repealed what happens to the rest of the Act?
I thought I had explained the matter. The question was dealt with when the Act which is now being consolidated in this Act was argued when it was introduced as a Bill. We are bringing into one Measure a Subsection which was contained in the Royal Marines Act.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 62.—(Short title and commencement.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I feel that this conglomeration of conscription Acts should not be called a National Service Act, but I suggest that it should be called a Waste of Manpower Act.
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
First to Fifth Schedules agreed to.
SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."
On the Sixth Schedule I am back to what I raised on Clause 60. Quite frankly the Minister has not given us information of any kind. He said—[ Interruption. ] I thought there were some Members who were under the impression that I was speaking All I am concerned about at this stage is that the Minister in presenting the Bill for Second Reading gave no explanation of any kind. As I said on that occasion, he may have used his own judgment in deciding not to make any explanation, but he cannot do a thing like that and then in Committee say he explained it in very great detail.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how by repealing one Section of an Act embodied in this consolidation Measure he is making the position of consolidation quite clear. If we were consolidating the Acts in their entirety in this Bill then one could understand the complete repeal of all the Acts formerly operating in the country, but tonight we are repealing all the Acts except the Royal Marines Act, 1948. We have not been properly advised by the Minister, and I am completely dissatisfied with the way he has tried to explain this Bill.
I am sorry if the hon. Member is dissatisfied but when I brought in this Bill on Second Reading I did explain the change. I explained, as I was entitled to do, that it was a consolidating Measure that made no change in the Act at all. I am sorry if my hon. Friend is not satisfied, but I cannot make any further explanation because I should be out of Order.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Industrial Injuries (Miners' Supplementary Scheme)
10.0 p.m.
I beg to move,
The parties to the present scheme desire that some of the benefits for which the supplementary scheme provides should be paid by the Department, concurrently with the corresponding benefits under the main Act. Regarding the parties submitting the scheme, on the employers' side it is submitted by the National Coal Board, in conjunction with the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. From the men's side the scheme is submitted by the National Federation of Mineworkers, the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, and the British Association of Colliery Management. Between them, they cover practically all the people concerned. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that they do, in fact, represent for this purpose the whole body of the workers affected by the scheme.
The scheme is a contributory one. The men pay 4d. a week which is the same as they pay for the whole of the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act. The Coal Board pay 4d. a ton on the saleable output of deep-mined coal, the small mine-owners reimbursing their share by an equivalent increase in the royalty payable under their licence. The Government actuary has assured my right hon. Friend that these contributions are, in his opinion, adequate to provide the benefits under the scheme.
The scheme is intended to start on 2nd August, 1948. The parties would have liked it to be ready to start on 5th July, which was the appointed day for the Industrial Injuries Act. As this was not possible, a special arrangement has been made under which the benefits will, in practice, be paid to men injured after 5th July, and the money will be provided by an extra contribution of 1d. per man and 1d. per ton during the first 16 contribution weeks. As a matter of machinery, the scheme provides that the money required to pay the benefits in respect of these weeks will not be paid into the fund, but the Coal Board's contribution being reduced thereby and made available in that way. The scheme itself is in no sense retrospective.
This deduction is provided for in paragraph 5. That paragraph provides for a further deduction of such amount as may be certified by an actuary appointed by the Minister to be required for securing benefits to be provided by the Board for people who are in receipt of workmen's compensation, in respect of injuries or diseases arising before 5th July. These cases do not come within the scheme, but a separate arrangement is being made to cover them, under which the man will get 5s. a week if he is working, 10s. a week if he is partially incapacitated but not working, and £1 a week if he is totally incapacitated.
The scheme contains detailed provisions for the collection of contributions and for the payment of them into a fund. This fund and the scheme generally are to be managed by a national committee consisting of ten members, five of whom are employers' representatives, and five the colliery workers' representatives. It should perhaps be made clear that the colliery workers covered by the scheme are all people employed otherwise than as clerical workers, in or about a colliery, below the rank of under-manager or similar grade. Of the employers' representatives, four are appointed by the Coal Board and one by the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. Of the colliery workers' representatives, four are appointed by the N.U.M. and one by my right hon. Friend, the latter being someone who in his opinion represents colliery workers who are not members of the N.U.M.
There are also to be local committees. They are to be composed as to one half of members of the employers and as to the other half of members of the colliery workers. These local committees will determine disputes other than those which are left to be determined by the statutory authorities under the main Act or which concern my right hon. Friend's part in the administration of the scheme. There will be an appeal from a local committee to the National Committee whose decision will be final. Any question whether an injury is an industrial injury or not will be decided on the claim to the main benefits under the Act in the ordinary way. The decision of the statutory authorities on a claim will be conclusive for the purposes of the scheme as well. But Clause 28 provides that if a dispute arises whether the particular kind of work the colliery worker was doing when he was injured was part of his work as a colliery worker or arose out of some subsidiary employment, it is to be settled by the committees. Such cases will be rare but no doubt they may occur.
As to benefits, to any injury benefit under the main Act an addition will be made of 20s. per week, a smaller sum being paid for juveniles. Disablement pensions payable under the main Act will have an addition of 33⅓ per cent. With regard to the widow of a colliery worker—widowed as a result of a colliery accident or disease—if she is over 40 or is incapacitated or has a child to look after, the payment is 20s. per week, and in any other case it will be 5s. per week. For the woman who is looking after the child of a colliery worker who met his death in an accident, there is a payment of 20s. per week.
So long as the injured miner continues to be unemployed, any supplementary benefit to which he is entitled will be paid concurrently with any benefit due under the main Act. If, however, he takes up employment, there is a special provision under which the supplementary benefit shall not exceed the difference between his pre-accident earnings and the aggregate of his post-accident earnings and Insurance Act benefits.
I am sure the House will recognise that here is reintroduced the old earnings rule under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme. It was thought undesirable for benefit in such cases to be administered by the Department and it is, therefore, arranged that when a man takes up employment the cases will be handed back to the Coal Board and any benefit he may still be entitled to will be paid by the Board and recovered by the Fund. In most cases, no doubt, it will be the Coal Board who is employing the man, but even if he is being employed by someone else, the Coal Board will still pay the supplementary benefit. His benefit under the main Act will, of course, be unaffected and will continue to be paid by the Department in the ordinary way. No deduction in respect of earnings will actually be made until the man has been in employment for three months.
There is one other important provision. If a person entitled to industrial injuries benefits in respect of an accident recovers damages from his employer in respect of that accident his benefits under the main Act will be unaffected as a result of the recent Personal Injuries Bill. However, that Bill provided in such a case that when a court came to assess damages, it should take into account one-half of the amount of benefit the man was likely to get in the five years from the date of the accident.
It is not possible to make similar arrangements about benefit under the supplementary scheme. Accordingly the scheme provides that, when a colliery worker recovers damages, he is to be liable to repay to the Board a certain amount of the supplementary benefits he may have drawn in respect of that accident. Briefly, the position is this: that he will have to repay or forgo supplementary benefit up to one-half of the amount of damages he has recovered, or for a period not exceeding four years from the date of the accident, whichever is the 1 s.
There are also a number of technical provisions, including such matters as the investment of the money composing the fund, periodical review by the actuary, the rendering of accounts, and so forth. The scheme also provides that either the Coal Board or the N.U.M. may at any time give not less than 12 months' notice of intention to withdraw from the scheme, and the scheme is to terminate accordingly, but provision is made in that event to safeguard the rights of any colliery worker who, during the currency of the scheme, has acquired rights to benefit.
This is the first supplementary scheme which has been submitted under the provisions of the Act. It has all along been contemplated that, while the benefits provided by the main Act in our judgment afforded reasonable compensation for injured workpeople, industry would be free to supplement those benefits by schemes of their own. Supplementary schemes are good, provided they are on a contributory basis, and it is on that basis that this scheme is recommended to the House.
10.13 p.m.
On the Report stage of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill there was on the Order Paper a new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and other hon. Friends of mine in almost, if not quite identical, terms with Section 83 of the Act under which this scheme purports to have been made. Therefore, it cannot be said that we on this side of the House are opposed, in principle, to supplemental schemes being made. Nor, in principle, are we opposed to a supplemental scheme for those engaged in the coal mining industry. If anyone doubts that statement, I would refer them to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds on the Second Reading of the Bill on 10th October, 1945.
However, I do not find it possible to congratulate the Minister on this supplemental scheme which, as we have just been told, is the first produced under Section 83 and which, as it has come before this House for consideration, the right hon. Gentleman has approved, and for which he is now seeking our approval. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the scheme was contributory. Indeed, in the third paragraph of the scheme itself it is stated to be a contributory scheme. But it is a contributory scheme quite novel in character and the word "contributory" is used in a quite different sense from that in which it has been previously used with regard to contributory insurance in this country—and there have been contributory insurance schemes for many years.
Up to now it has always been the principle, with regard to contributory insurance, that there should be at least roughly equal contributions. That principle, indeed, is recognised in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, where the contributions are equal. But here one finds that, far from there being equal contributions, one-sixth is to be provided by the colliery worker and five-sixths by the coal board. On payment of one-sixth of the cost the colliery worker will get 20s. more in injury benefit and have his disablement pension increased by a third. His widow, if under 40 and without children, will get an increase of 5s. and, if over 40, or under 40 with children, an increase of 20s.
So one finds that under this Scheme the surface worker at a colliery who sustains an industrial injury will get an injury benefit of 65s. as opposed to 45s. and, for instance, for a 60 per cent. disablement, by the loss of a leg above the knee, a disablement pension of 36s.; whereas all other insured persons under the National Insurance Act who sustain precisely the same injury—the loss of the leg above the knee—will get only 27s.
I have no objection to additional benefits from a contributory scheme if each side of the industry is making equal, or roughly equal, contributions. Then the additional benefits will correspond to the amount of the contribution. If the supplemental schemes are on that basis, even though there is a variation in the additional benefits between those employed in different industries, there will be no ground for jealousy between those employed in the different industries, no feeling that there has been favouritism and no ground for supposing that there has been a breach of trust and of duty on the part of the Minister approving the scheme.
I desire to ask these questions: Why should the colliery worker—which includes, of course, all surface workers—get these additional benefits for which he contributes only a fraction of the cost? Why should he get so much more than other servants of the State in the nationalised industries—railwaymen, electricians.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to come to this House to criticise in detail an agreement which has been made between both sides of the industry?
The House is entitled to criticise anything which comes before it. Even though the agreement may have been made between the union and the Government we are entitled to criticise it. That is one of our democratic principles.
My second question is: Why should the colliery worker get so much more than other servants of the State in the nationalised industries—railwaymen, electricians, gas workers—soon—or in the Armed Forces, in respect of precisely similar injuries? What logical or moral ground is there for saying that a colliery worker who has lost a leg is entitled to receive more than a railwayman or soldier or docker for precisely the same injury?
We have no objection to high supplemental benefits based upon equal contributions but here the five-sixths would be found by the Coal Board. The questions which I have asked require to be answered. I said that five-sixths of the cost will be borne by the Coal Board. It really means that five-sixths—more than £3 million—must be found by the coal consumer, by railwaymen and other workers in the State's industries, who for similar injuries will receive substantially less than those engaged in private industry. Employers in private industry will pro tanto have their ability to provide similar benefits diminished by the cost of subscribing to this extra fund. I know the burden on the coal industry for industrial injuries is substantially less than the burden of workmen's compensation, but the reason is that the burden has been transferred to the shoulders of the whole community. The safe industries now subsidise the hazardous industries. A portion of each weekly payment to a man in a safe industry goes to insure a man in a dangerous industry.
Why not?
I do not complain of that, I agree with that, but this additional burden is thrown upon the coal consumers. In the old days the coal consumer paid the cost of workmen's compensation and now the community contributes to the cost of insurance of colliery workers and will have to pay this extra £3 million.
I suggest that this House should not consider nationalised industries in isolation and that it is wrong for me right hon. Gentleman to do so. The Minister ot Fuel and Power is responsible for those in the electrical industry and the gas industry as well as for miners. The Minister of Transport is responsible for those in the railway industry and nationalised road transport and in my opinion the Minister of National Insurance, before giving approval to a scheme such as this, is under a duty to make sure that a scheme for one nationalised industry is not to the prejudice of those in other State industries. This scheme clearly is unless it is intended to bring in schemes for those employed in other nationalised industries of a precisely similar character with equal benefits, and with the employers and the public contributing five-sixths of the cost. If that is done a tremendous burden will be cast upon the whole community.
I do not object, but I think we should get this right. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr Manningham-Buller) appreciates that under the powers of the Act I have no power to bring in a scheme at all, but the scheme must be brought to me.
I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman has no power to bring in a scheme for those in nationalised industries, but before a scheme has statutory sanction under Section 43 of this Measure it has to be approved by him. Having that power he can at least ensure some degree of uniformity. In my view it is his duty to see that a scheme for one nationalised industry will not work to the prejudice of those employed in another nationalised industry. It is also his duty before giving approval to a supplemental scheme of this sort to see that those appointed to run these nationalised industries who have responsibilities not only to those employed in the industry, but as trustees for the general public—to see that these vast Socialist-created monopolies do not accept the burden in the knowledge that however great it is—
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not want to curtail discussion on the scheme, we seem to be discussing the running of nationalised industries. My obligations under Section 83 are quite clear. Schemes are submitted to me and I must bring them to the House for approval. My power is entirely confined to Section 83 of the Industrial Injuries Act I shall not be able to reply to questions which are completely irrelevant to Section 83 of the Act.
Further to that point of Order. The scheme itself requires an affirmative Resolution. It further requires the approval of the Minister. As it requires an affirmative Resolution it is surely in Order for me to discuss this matter in relation to the provisions made for this liability in other industries and to discuss what is the right hon. Gentleman's duty before he gives approval to any scheme?
It is rather difficult to limit this Debate. My desire is to limit it to colliery workers as far as possible, but there must be a certain background, a certain atmosphere. This being the first scheme, and as I understand there are to be other schemes, there must be a certain amount of relativity, and I am sure that that will not be pursued too far. We must not discuss other schemes. We are discussing this one scheme, but its relativity to what might happen is in Order without being pursued too far.
I hope that I shall not pursue it too far. This is the first supplementary scheme we have had for consideration and the second Subsection of the Section in question states that the Minister may by Order approve, with or without amendment, any supplementary scheme if he is satisfied that it is expedient that the scheme should come into operation. In considering whether he is satisfied that this scheme should come into operation, the right hon. Gentleman must, in my opinion, have considered or should have considered its impact upon those engaged in the other industries.
I was saying, and I put the point quite shortly, that in my submission it is the Minister's duty to see that one of these great monopolies does not accept a burden with the knowledge that however great it is it can safely rely upon passing it on to the consumer—a burden which no industry which has to face competition can carry. The Minister is, in my opinion, under those two duties, and having considered the terms of this scheme my view is that he has failed to discharge them. If he had had regard to those engaged in other industries he would never have given his approval to it and brought it before the House in its present form.
Does the Minister suggest that other industries which have to face competition, the shipping industry, for example, which is about as hazardous as the mining industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—does he suggest that the agricultural industry, which is now becoming a somewhat hazardous industry as it is becoming mechanised, will be able to carry the burden of similar schemes, with the employers carrying five-sixths of the cost—that every farmer should pay that proportion of an increased contribution? If he suggests that, I submit that this great change should be effected by a Bill which we could examine in detail and should not be brought about by piecemeal supplementary schemes. The scheme which we are now considering applies not only to those who work below the ground but also to those who work above ground—colliery workers of both kinds.
I wish to pass to the second part of my argument in relation to this scheme. It will be seen from paragraph 5 that provision is made for the deduction from the 4d. per ton of a certain sum for securing the benefits to be provided under the Workmen's Compensation scheme. I do not know how many hon. Members have had an opportunity of considering the contents of that scheme. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for sending a copy of it to me at my request. I believe that copies are available now in the Vote Office. They certainly were not last Friday.
To keep the record right, may I say they are not in the Vote Office, but in the Library.
I am informed they are in the Vote Office now and available. I think I am keeping the record right. If we are to be asked to approve any scheme incorporating by reference another scheme, that other scheme ought to be available to Members so that they can have ample opportunity to consider it. I am sorry it was not done in this case.
As far as I can see, broadly speaking, the effect of the scheme, which is approved by the Minister of Fuel and Power, is that there would be an additional payment to those who are now in receipt of workmen's compensation, for which, of course, there has been no contribution. Surely, this is an important innovation. Why is it that only those in this industry now in receipt of workmen's compensation are to get this increased benefit? If it is right for them to get an increase in their workmen's compensation, surely, it is right for all those who are in receipt of workmen's compensation to get an increase. If it is done only for them and not for others, I feel some will see that it is a clear indication of favouritism, done in the knowledge that through lack of competition the burden of cost can safely be passed on to the consumer.
Because it is the most hazardous industry.
I have made reference to two duties which in my opinion rest on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman. There is, I think, yet another—the duty to see the scheme for State-run industry fits in and is in line with the general scheme in the Act. In three respects this scheme departs from the principles laid down in the Act. First of all, in relation to the treatment of widows. Under the scheme, the dividing line between lower pension and higher pension is the age of 40. In the Act the age limit is 50. If a widow is above 50, she gets higher pension, or if she is below 50 and has children, she gets a higher pension. But under the supplemental scheme the dividing age is 40. If 50 is right under the Act, why 40 now? It is a clear departure from the scheme in the Act and clearly an instance of preference given to widows of colliery workers over all other widows of men in industry.
Secondly, one of the principles of the Act was that there should not only be equality of contribution, but also equality of representation on the local appeal tribunals. Here we find gross inequality of contribution coupled with equality of representation on local committees and on national committees, although one half of every committee is responsible for only one-sixth of the contribution from which the supplemental benefits will come.
Thirdly, the Act did away with the calculation of pre-accident and post-accident earnings, a provision which I personally, and I think everyone, welcomed. Here all that is brought back again, but for a different purpose, to impose a ceiling. It is obviously contemplated that a man who is partially disabled will be able, with the benefits he receives under the Act and under the scheme and what he is able to earn, to get more each week than he earned before the accident. Therefore, this ceiling is imposed. It involves complicated calculations, with the result that a partially disabled man, if he earns more than a certain amount, will find it does not benefit him; it reduces the amount of supplemental benefit he receives.
There is one other matter to which I feel I should refer. On the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, I pressed for an assurance that the position of the ex-Service man would be brought into line. In Committee, that subject was also raised. In February, 1946, that was brought about. Now the same question arises again. It was raised by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on 9th July. We hear today from the Minister of Pensions that there is no statement to be made. From the sequence of events, I regret that it appears to me to be quite clear that the Government give to colliery workers priority of consideration over ex-Service men.
The hon. and learned Member appears to be raising another issue which is out of Order on this Prayer.
I would not seek to challenge any Ruling which you gave, Mr. Speaker, but I do submit, for your consideration, the fact that the basis of assessment of disability pensions for ex-Service men and under the Industrial Injuries Act is now similar. The pension of 60 per cent. disability for an ex-Service man and for an industrially insured man, prior to this scheme being introduced, was the same. Surely, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled merely to point out once again that treatment has been given to miners in preference to ex-Service men.
That is quite outside the field of this order. I must rule that it is out of Order.
You gave a Ruling earlier, Mr. Speaker, and pointed out that this is the first of what may be a number of supplementary schemes, and that while it would not be in Order to discuss in detail any matters which may arise in other schemes, there would be a background, and it would be proper to refer to that background in order to discuss this scheme.
There is nothing in the whole system of ex-Service men's pensions which could arise out of this order. I rule that this is out of Order.
On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has reminded you of the actual wording of Clause 83 of the Act under which this supplementary scheme is being brought in. The wording of that Act specifically lays on the Minister the obligation to consider whether the wording in a supplementary scheme is expedient. And "expedient" presumably is to be taken in its widest sense. It lays upon the Minister the duty, if he does not think it expedient to approve the scheme in its original form, of altering it. I submit, with all respect, that we are in Order in pointing out that in our opinion, at all events, the Minister has failed grossly in his duty if he overlooked the fact that one of the incidental results of this scheme is to place, at the cost of the consumer—and let that not be forgotten—as to five-sixths of the expense, the widow of a miner in a much more favourable position than the widow of an ex-Service man.
No doubt the Minister, in considering the matter, has to think of what is expedient. But my duty is to consider what I think is really relevant. I do not think that this is really relevant to the argument on a colliery workers' order, which is now before the House. I rule that it is not relevant, and that is the end of that.
rose —
If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge my Ruling I shall order him to resume his place.
May I, Mr. Speaker, ask for your guidance? If we are going to approve this scheme, we must obviously discuss the amounts of the benefits conferred by it. Would that be relevant within the meaning of your Ruling? That is, whether they are adequate, or too small, or too large. One cannot, as you say, go into the question of whether comparable benefits are adequate or not in other schemes, but to ascertain whether the benefits provided under this scheme are adequate, some reference must be made to show the background against which they are being introduced. After all, if a man loses his leg, that man is just as much injured whether it is shot off or whether it is lost underground as a result of a colliery accident. Surely, Sir, we may make reference to the background against which the scheme is introduced.
I do not think that it is very relevant. These matters will be available for discussion in the near future—on Thursday next, I think.
But when we are discussing the ex-Service man's disability pension we shall not, I gather, be out of Order if we refer to the pensions provided under this supplemental scheme. It is very difficult if, in cases which from the point of view of the sufferer appear to be parallel, it is impossible for comparisons to be drawn because they come before the House in different Debates.
The other evening we discussed that matter; it was raised by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and, surely, it will be in Order next Thursday to discuss the merits of the cases for ex-Service men and miners.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to infringe your Ruling, and I had no intention of going into detail with regard to ex-Service men's pensions. I wished to refer to nothing but the chronology of the treatment of miners and ex-Service men. The Minister has power to amend this Scheme, and I hope that he will do so. One of the penalties of nationalisation is that one cannot single out, properly, those in one of the State industries for preferential treatment. There must be, surely, some degree of uniformity, and, surely, it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to see that there is that uniformity. This scheme is unsatisfactory in that it deals with a nationalised industry in isolation and provides for inequality of contribution; it will lead the right hon. Gentleman down a path which will give him a great deal of trouble in the future.
10.45 p.m.
I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman with very great interest, but I must say that I think he has been very badly briefed and that his speech was terribly disappointing. I wish he had made that speech from one of the miner's platforms on miners' gala day at Durham last Saturday and had stood behind some of the miners' banners draped with black. Every Durham miner and his wife and child know why the banners are draped with black. No one need ask the question. The answer is always readily given—another fatal accident or perhaps more than one at that particular colliery since last gala day. I know perfectly well that if he had delivered that speech at the miners' gala he would have found himself in the river.
The worst feature of that speech to my mind was that it was the chief speech from the Tory benches and it was the voice of His Majesty's Opposition. The miners will be terribly dismayed at such a speech as that to which we have had to listen to tonight. For three years I have sat in this House listening to the Tories remind us again and again that they are the friends of the working classes, the poor and the little man. I must not wander on to that subject, however, for there are a few things I could say about Tory legislation. In fact, I have been astounded when I have seen their crocodile tears. It has worried me to see them having such sympathy today when the first independent Labour Government is in power. Such liking for the British working man has not been seen before in the history of this country.
The Minister has done a grand job of work in bringing forward this order, and I compliment him upon it. I am surprised at the psychology of hon. Members opposite. This is one of the greatest opportunities that has been presented to them in their whole political lives, but they are so blind that they cannot see it, and we are bound to tell the miners of this country that we now see on the benches opposite men who are bursting with enthusiasm to help them now, but were not so enthusiastic in the years they were in power. It is staggering to see the interest which has been displayed through their chief speaker tonight.
This is an agreed scheme, and unless it had been agreed the Minister could not have brought it forward. I have the privilege of being chairman of the miners' group in this House, which I count a very great honour. I have had the privilege of seeing the matter argued out with the Coal Board. Meeting after meeting has taken place, tempers have become frayed, and a battle royal has been fought, but judging from what has been said tonight on behalf of the Opposition it would seem that the National Coal Board has simply agreed to the scheme as though there were nothing in it. All I have to say is that that is not the way agreements are made. There is not even a word of commendation from the hon. and learned Member. The speech, from beginning to end, is negative.
I wish to say this to the Minister—I am delighted to take part in this Debate. This, to my mind, is a red-letter day in the history of the mining industry, and I can assure the Minister that the miners' group in this House—which is the largest trade union group—is 100 per cent. behind the Minister, loyal to a man to the scheme that he is bringing forward. I go further and say this: that there is no one who knows more about the practical application of workmen's compensation rights than the miners' group in this House. They know that for 40 years we have been fighting, struggling and agitating for an increase in the rates of compensation. But how far did we get? Sympathy from the Tories opposite?
The only sympathy got from them was soldiers with guns when the miners were fighting for their rights.
I want to say that the greatest fear that the miner's wife has in this country is of a serious accident to her husband or son who is the bread-winner of the home.
So has every other wife, too.
I want to say, as far as the miner's wife is concerned, that when that man leaves home and says "goodbye" she may never see him again and she knows it. Accidents in the mining industry are a nightmare to the miner's wife. She always fears the worst. She is fully alive to the serious situation that faces her. Not only does she fear a broken husband; that is bad enough, indeed, but with a broken husband there also goes a broken pay packet, which has meant so many times semi-starvation for her and the children, with only the Poor Law to come to her rescue. That has been the position in the mining industry which our men and their wives have had to face.
At this late hour I do not intend to speak very long but even now, after 50 years of hard work, this scheme is brought forward. I welcome this scheme that the Minister has brought forward tonight; it has been agreed upon by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. It is over two years since it was asked for by the miners' leaders. It was on 10th January, 1946, when the Minister received a letter from the Miners' Union; yet not a word of recommendation in the hon. and learned Member's speech. The Tories must have forgotten this. Mr. Jim Bowman representing the Miners' Union, and the manpower officer know perfectly well that it will be difficult to obtain the recruits to the mining industry this year.
And yet we have had an exhibition tonight that is absolutely staggering. If we want to get recruits to the mining industry let us have the right conditions for them. Yet it would appear that £3 5s. 0d. is an exorbitant sum for the miner to receive when he is off work: £3 5s. 0d.—how many dinners could our hon. Friends opposite get for that sum? A married man who is off work is going to get £4 1s. 0d. It has not been suggested tonight—but I think statements have bordered on the fringe of it—that if the sum was put too high the miners would not go back to work any more. The man who gets £6 to £8 a week will not stay at home and draw £3 5s. It is absolutely ridiculous. What always happens in homes where a serious situation occurs, either through accident or disease, is that expenses rise and income falls. That is why the miners want a supplementary scheme—to give the women a little chance of feeding the men and bringing them back to normal health and back to industry.
Why do miners want a supplementary scheme? Because their calling is dangerous and difficult, and the accident rate is very high. In fact, it is acknowledged that the rate in the mining industry is the highest in the country. On the average a miner can expect to become disabled seriously more or less once every four or five years. In the industry in 1940, 923 people were killed, 3,237 were seriously injured, and 146,388 injured or disabled for more than three days. Those are staggering figures. I am glad to note that in 1947, because of the safety measures taken, fatal accidents were reduced to 618, and cases of serious injury to 2,429. There are no figures available of those injured or disabled for more than three days in 1947, but in 1946 they had gone up to 167,230.
Let us take a look at the figures for the seven years preceding nationalisation. We find that 5,154 persons were killed in the mining industry, 18,873 were seriously injured, and 1,170,224 suffered disablement so that this country should have the coal necessary to keep it going. What a price to pay in human suffering. The scheme which the Minister has brought forward will not stop one accident in the mines, but it will bring comfort and some satisfaction to the 720,000 miners employed in the industry who never know who the next victim will be.
This is the first scheme which has been made under Section 83 of the principal Act. Neither the miners' leaders nor the men working in the industry ever thought they would live to see the day when they would be paying contributions toward their own benefits. In principle, the whole mining community is against contributions. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know that the Coal Board is making a profit of between £4 and £5 million out of this scheme—surplus money which is left. I was very interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman talk about a fifty-fifty contribution. It is really a grand idea; I had some experience of that in the coal mines. The manager always said they wanted a revision of prices, but I found that he got £2,000 out of the deal and the miner got £200.
Let me examine the figures I found in the Library of the House in the 31st Annual Report on His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the year 1938. For fatalities, accidents and diseases in mines and quarries we have this position. In that year there were engaged in the mines of this country 75,856 quarrymen. There were 73 fatal accidents, 7,972 were disabled through accident, there were no fatalities through disease, and 40 were disabled through disease. In the mining industry we had 796,265 people employed in that year, or 10½ times the number employed in the quarries. I have not selected these figures because I know something about them. They were taken at random and from a quite fair examination of these two sets of figures we find that there were 73 fatal accidents in the quarries and 983 in the mines, or 13½ more than in the quarries. There were 162,093 disabled through accident in the mines, or 20 times more than the number disabled through accident in the quarries. We had three fatalities through disease, and 12,534 disabled through disease or 313 times as many in the mines as in the quarries.
What does that really mean? It means this, in a nutshell. If we have sixpence from the owners, the Coal Board, sixpence from the miners, sixpence from the employers of the quarrymen, and sixpence from the quarrymen, we have an an all-round fifty-fifty contribution. But what does it really mean? It means that for the sixpence the miner contributes he gets 4s. 6d. a week in compensation, and the quarryman for the similar contribution gets 9s. 5d. Do the Tories really suggest that that would be fair? Would that be a good thing? Do they think the miners would accept a figure like that?
In this matter the railwaymen, if they agree with their employers, can come forward to the Minister with a scheme, and so can the dockers. This is not simply for the benefit of the miners and solely a miners' scheme. It is for the benefit of the whole country, and that is what the Labour Government stand for. Labour for the people, that is what we were sent here to try to do, and as representatives of the people we shall support the Minister to the end. He has the whole support of the Members on this side of the House, and I wish him well.
Before the hon. Member sits down, will he answer this question? With whom does he suggest that the soldiers should come to an agreement before they bring in a scheme.
11.5 p.m.
In the last passages of his speech, when he claimed to speak for the country as a whole, the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) had come to realise how the whole of the earlier part of his speech had sought to express solely the point of view of the miners. He reproached my hon. and learned Friend for making a speech which he thought would not have been appropriate at a miner's gala, but he can congratulate himself that his speech would have been as great a success at a miner's gala as it was to-night. It is not without significance that the hon. Member for Spennymoor should have said that the miners are the largest trade union group in the House. It is not without significance, perhaps, that the first supplementary scheme introduced and approved by the Minister should be one promoted by the miners.
I ask, in the first place, what is the justification for larger benefits being paid to miners? The hon. Member, in his eloquent references to widows and disabled persons, apparently thought that it is worse to be the widow of a miner than to be the widow of—[HON. MEMBERS: "More chance."]—That is not the point. Allow me to develop my argument. The Industrial Injuries Bill was introduced so that all those who suffer injury or lose their lives through industrial accident should be treated in the same way. It is up to the Minister tonight to explain why it should be necessary that higher benefits should be paid to miners than to other classes of workers.
The hon. Member will admit that in that Act there is specific provision for these supplementary schemes?
I should not have got up to speak on this scheme if I did not know that it had been submitted under Section 83 of that Act. If while the Bill was being debated in this House it had been indicated that, in the case of a particular influential class of workers, a special supplementary scheme would be introduced so that they should receive higher rates of benefit, and that the bulk of the cost of that should be borne by the rest of the community, it would then have been agreed by the House that that was not a supplementary scheme such as was contemplated should be introduced under Section 83. What was contemplated, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), was that in the case of particular hazardous industries, where there is a particularly high rate of earning—[ Interruption ]—yes, earning, there should be a supplementary scheme to which those workers could contribute, in order that when they were disabled there should not be that sudden fall in the standard of living which would have taken place in other circumstances.
We have not so far had any justification whatever for a supplementary scheme being introduced for the benefit of miners as a whole. If this had been an industry which was in private hands, where the contribution by employers would have been paid out of their profits, if it was an industry with increasing production and declining costs, then I would say that there would have been a case for the two parties to the industry coming together and submitting their plan to the Minister of National Insurance; and if he approved it, he could have submitted it to this House. The position in the case of the coal mining industry is entirely different—where the output is far less than it was before the war—
It is going up, and the hon. Member does not like it.
It may be going up at the present time, but it is still not anything like what it was before the war. In the coal mining industry, where output is still far less than is required for the immediate needs of the nation, where wages have risen and costs have risen, where the whole of the increase of costs and the reduction in hours has been put upon the consumer, that can be done only because of nationalisation and monopoly where there is no competition.
Therefore, I say that this House, as representing the consumers, is under an obligation—[ Interruption ]—as representing the consumers, domestic consumers and, what is yet more important than the domestic consumers, industry. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying only a short time ago, there is a great danger of the prices of our goods being too high for export, and, therefore, it is a most relevant consideration tonight, that if this scheme is to be introduced, the whole of this additional burden is to be put on the price of coal, and, therefore, upon the consumers—and, as an hon. Friend of mine reminds me, upon that small trickle of the output of coal which at the present time is being exported. This can be done only because the industry has been nationalised, and because the consumer is obliged to pay whatever the Coal Board chooses to exact from him.
It was, of course, most interesting to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Spennymoor, who indicated the pressure that had been brought to bear upon the Coal Board. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite make no mistake about this: the scheme which has been introduced tonight will certainly be used by us on this side of the House as a great justification for our opposition to the nationalisation of the coalmining industry. It was defended by hon. Gentlemen opposite as being the substitution of production for use for production for profit, and they said that the industry was going to be run in the interests of the country as a whole instead of in the interests of the coalowners. Now we can see to what extent the pressure of the Miners' Union in this House, in addition to the pressure brought to bear upon the Coal Board, results in schemes of this kind being brought forward for approval.
It is difficult to argue upon the exact burden of this cost. The Minister who introduced this scheme was extremely chary of giving us any figures as to the cost. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will repair the omission of his hon. Friend. I hope that we shall hear exactly what the cost of this will be to the industry. I hope also that we shall hear exactly what the cost will be of the previous arrangement which only so very recently was made available to the House, of this supplementary scheme, in the case of those who are at present drawing benefits under workmen's compensation. As for as I have been able to make a calculation, which naturally is not authoritative, it looks as though these two supplementary schemes will reimpose upon the consumers of coal about the whole of the burden from which they would have been released under the main Act. I submit there can be no justification for a policy of that kind. The purpose of the Industrial Injuries Act was to remove the burden of accidents from every individual industry and spread it over industry as a whole. Under the main Act the very heavy cost of accidents in the coal mines was removed from the coal-mining industry as such and was spread over the whole of industry.
Under this scheme it would seem as though the rest of industry is not only going to be called on to continue to pay for its rateable share of accidents in industry, but also to make a special contribution in order to finance this additional benefit for the miners. This scheme ought never to have been put forward by the Coal Board. We were given to understand that in their responsibilities under the Act—they would administer the industry to the general advantage of the country as a whole. It is obvious that under this scheme, they are seeking to give additional benefits and advantages to the coal miners which no other industry in the country could possibly afford. In the second place, the Minister of National Insurance ought not to have approved this scheme and ought not to have brought it forward tonight. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention. [ Interruption. ] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen interfere in this way. It is common courtesy when a Minister's conduct is being criticised, that he should listen to the criticism being made. We have not yet come to the position in this country in which the Government do not even listen to the criticism made.
I am sorry.
I have a great personal regard for the right hon. Gentleman. This is perhaps the first occasion when I have found myself in very serious disagreement with a policy which he is advocating. The reason is this. On previous occasions he has been bringing forward proposals which were for the benefit of all classes of the community who find themselves in certain difficulties.
This is the first time to my knowledge the right hon. Gentleman has come forward with proposals for the benefit of a particular class in the community. I deny that there is any justification whatsoever for this special benefit to be given. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is wrong and unfair that so large a proportion of the cost of those benefits should be paid by the rest of the community and by persons who are not going to derive benefit from it. We have had tonight a remarkable example of what happens under a Socialist Government dominated by the trades unions. We have had a new application of class legislation of a kind to which I should not have thought the right hon. Gentleman would ever have lent himself.
11.20 p.m.
I will be very brief, because the whole case of the Opposition is based on arguments contrary to their previous legislation. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that previous legislation on this subject of workmen's compensation, or industrial injury, is based solely on the employers' liability and responsibility to the workman for injury at his work, whether by accident or disease. That has been the whole basis of Conservative legislation in the past with regard to workmen's compensation, and it has been accepted by previous Governments, which have based the whole of their legislation upon it. I challenge any Member of the Opposition to deny this. The legislation has been based upon the idea that the workman should not make any contribution towards the cost of his compensation; that it was solely the employers' liability.
Really it was a concession which the T.U.C. considered at great length whether, in accepting the reformed social legislation proposed in recent years, the workman should give up what has been the accepted axiom of Conservative legislation, and should make a contribution towards the cost of workmen's compensation. I hope that the Conservative Opposition here tonight will be brave enough to go to the country showing that it has the courage to vote against a scheme of this kind. The workers of the country want to know definitely whether they are going to vote against schemes of this kind.
Let me make this point. What their policy amounts to is increased production through death and blood. They want to increase the production of the miners, who are engaged in the most hazardous industry in the country with the highest accident rate, not only from invalidity and disability, but from the point of view of death, and the highest also from the point of view of disease, which is now, in law, considered as an accident. Let us look at the prescribed diseases now or the previous schedule of industrial diseases. We shall find in this industry a whole string of diseases causing invalidity and subsequent death. I hope that hon. Members will remember that those who work underground and those who work above ground, as well, are liable to industrial disease. Once a lung is injured by inhalation of dust, it is always liable to infection by tubercle, which means that such men are liable to a high death rate, to long suffering, and to a lingering struggle to preserve life.
Why should not this industry, with its great health hazards and dangers, be singled out for a scheme of this kind which may give it treatment entirely different from that given to the rest of the community. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) comes here and preaches about what his colleagues did to bring about uniformity, equality of pay, equality of remuneration for every worker in the country. But the miner runs a greater risk than the ordinary electrical worker; certainly a greater risk than does a Member of Parliament or a lawyer. I submit that the whole of the scheme should be approved, and that this discussion is a waste of time.
I want to make the point that the Conservative Opposition have missed the mark. We have heard of what they have done, but their legislation has always been based on employers' liability. Here, the employee is making his contribution and, having regard to the hazards in this particular industry, which are disproportionate to those in any other industry in any part of the world, I submit that the Minister is perfectly justified in saying that an additional scheme should be brought in to give ease and comfort to these workers. It should be ease and comfort given, not only because of the psychological effect on the man's wife, or his other relatives, but because of the help it is to the man himself. I hope that the House will come to a decision, and let the Opposition vote against the scheme if they can.
11.26 p.m.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) has described this discussion as a waste of time. I do not think that it is, although I am in some doubt whether it has not proceeded on slightly mistaken lines. The two hon. Members who have spoken from the Benches opposite have mainly concerned themselves, as they are fully entitled to do, with the needs of the miners; but speakers on this side have concerned themselves, as they are equally entitled to do, with the general implications of policy which the scheme raises. What I cannot understand is why both points of view are considered hostile one to the other. I do not treat them so, and I shall be much surprised whether it is thought on either side of the House that the scheme should be a matter of party division.
For, if there is any matter on which we should be reluctant to differ on party lines it is surely on schemes of compensation for injured people. If we do so differ, I hope that we shall do so in a spirit in which we attempt to understand the honest principles which under-lie those party differences. For my own part, I do not think that there are any party differences here, but there are a number of important issues which have to be considered and I think I am entitled to raise them at this stage.
I have not addressed this House on the question of industrial injury since an unfortunate difference between the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. Porter) and myself on the principles of what subsequently became the Industrial Injuries Act.
And you were thoroughly beaten.
I was thoroughly beaten, but some of the suggestions which I made are in the principle of the structure we are considering this evening, and what hon. Members opposite think are differences, are matters of their own creation.
I have always approached the question of industrial injury and, indeed, any other injury, from a different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). The person who loses his leg, or the wife who loses her husband, is just as much in need, whether the leg or the husband is lost on the battlefield, in a road accident, in a colliery accident, or by getting smashed up in an agricultural implement. What possible difference can it make to that man's needs, or that widow's needs, that that man happened to be engaged in a hazardous industry? The fact that the industry is hazardous means that the accident is a little more likely to happen, but it does not mean that the need of the man when he is injured, is any greater, or any less. Nor does it mean that the need of the widow, if the man is killed, is any greater or is less. After all, when discussing compensation for industrial injury the need of the man who has suffered the accident has to be considered.
The hon. Member forgets that the soldier, or the man who is injured in the ordinary social accidents, such as a road accident, is not under the constant risk of intermittent recurrence. That is a risk to which miners and those engaged in hazardous occupations are subject, and it is a repetitive risk. The miner and his wife are under the constant cloud of not knowing when the miner at his work will be injured and disabled. The distinction is there, and when the hon. Member says that there is no difference between industrial injury and any other accidents either of disease or of a vehicle in civilian life he is not accurate.
The hon. Gentleman accuses me of forgetting something. I was not forgetting it. On the contrary, I was in my own humble and doubtless ineffective way seeking to illustrate the point. I was urging the hon. Member, who I thought made his point just as well in his original speech, to try to understand exactly why to me the distinctions are wholly irrelevant. In a word, the need of the man or woman whom we are seeking to compensate is every bit as great whatever the source of the accident may have been. It is absolutely no consolation to the woman whose husband happens to be killed in a road accident, and who thereby is deprived of the bread winner, to be told that the accident to the pedestrian is not nearly of the same dangerous kind as the accident which happens to the miner, because the need of either will not be any less whatever kind of accident has taken away the husband.
Having come to that conclusion, which I did, as some hon. Members will remember, in the last Parliament, I always foresaw that compensation under this scheme, whether the branch which deals with health or the branch which deals with industrial injury, would prove ineffective and insufficient, and that, in fact, has turned out to be the case. I always foresaw, and, indeed, I prophesied, that we would have a series of piecemeal schemes one after the other, introduced first, for one industry, and then for another, in which wholly differential rates would continue to be brought into effect and that in one case it would be one thing and in another it would be another, without any relation inter se to need or suffering, but either to the industrial requirements of the industry to secure recruitment, or because of the hazards to which those engaged in that industry are subjected.
Or the loss.
Or the loss. That is a perfectly legitimate comment for the hon. Gentleman to make. I know that I am a rather lonely figure in putting forward this point of view, but it is a point of view which I have never heard contradicted. I am prepared to concede that once we commit ourselves to an insufficient scheme based on a fallacious principle, it is absolutely inevitable that we shall have one scheme after another presented to supplement that inadequacy, and for that reason I shall certainly not vote against the scheme.
Indeed, if driven to it I shall support the scheme, but my hon. Friends were more than justified in pointing out the anomalies to which this scheme commits the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) that when the great bulk of the members discussed the White Paper on which the present Industrial Injuries Act was based they honestly believed, although some of us argued to the contrary, that the public at large were going to be given a real measure of insurance against accidents and a real measure of compensation if a man or woman were crippled or disabled when an accident took place. I have always believed that that was foolish. I deeply regret that that particular method was adopted, but, since it has been adopted, it is of course inevitable that schemes of this kind should be introduced, and, although I look forward to the opportunity which we missed on the last occasion of approaching the subject of suffering from the more rational standpoint of need, I shall support this particular order this evening.
11.36 p.m.
In committee on the Industrial Injuries Act, I put down a new Clause which eventually became Section 83 of the Act. I found that a number of names had been added to mine in support of that new Clause. I hope that I am in order in quoting the names, not in the traditional Parliamentary manner according to the constituency which the hon. Members represent, but by their own names as they appeared on the Order Paper. They were Mr. Peake; Mr. Hogg; Mr. Walker Smith; Major Boyd-Carpenter; Mr. Sutcliffe; and Mr. Marlow. When I came to move what became Section 83 of the Industrial Injuries Act, it was with the full and complete support of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Therefore we began on common ground; we agreed that Clause 83 should go into the Bill. We supported it in identical words. I want to get this perfectly clear—for it is very important. The whole question of supplementary schemes in so far as I am concerned is governed entirely by Section 83. Apart from Section 83, I as Minister have no power at all. Yet the tenor of the speeches tonight is that I have formulated the scheme which I am now putting to this House. But I have no power to bring forward or make a scheme. As a matter of fact, I do not as Minister come into the picture until a scheme is brought to me. That is where we begin. Let us get it perfectly clear.
Section 83 begins with these words—and these are the words to which the hon. Members opposite put their names, including the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who has just spoken and who, therefore, supports them. This is what Section 83 of the Act states:
That is the legal position. The first step, therefore, does not lie with me nor with the Government. It lies with a body representing the employers and a body representing the workers. It so happens that the first scheme that comes before us is from the miners. The National Coal Board is concerned here—the body set up by the Coal Nationalisation Act to administer the coal mining industry for the nation. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that the Coal Board should be denied the right which every other employer in the country possesses? May I put this to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake): Supposing that we had not nationalised the coal industry, and supposing he was still a coal owner in Yorkshire he could have met the men he employed in his pit and agreed with them upon a scheme. He would have been perfectly entitled to do it if the Nationalisation Act had not come into operation.
This right of making supplementary schemes is one which any employer or body of workers have. They can then come to me for approval if they so wish.
The right hon. Gentleman has put a point to me. He knows that I was in favour of supplemental schemes, and also that had the coal industry remained in private hands I should have advocated a supplementary scheme for the mining industry. I suggest that now there is national ownership, the Coal Board must carefully consider the repercussions on other State employees and other persons disabled in the service of the State, of any scheme into which they enter.
The right hon. Gentleman now puts it in an entirely different way. What he says now is that when the Coal Board submit a scheme to me, they must consider its repercussions. Supposing bodies of employers did not submit schemes, and did not come to me at all—what then? The reason we provided this Section was because it was represented to us that since we were to create an administration for the main schemes, it would be desirable to offer our services for administering supplementary schemes of this kind. There is similar provision in the National Insurance Act, by which workers and employers can agree to supplement sickness benefit, or old age pensions or any other kind of benefit.
The whole purpose of the provision in Section 83 is to enable the administrative machine of the Ministry of National Insurance to become available for the administration of supplementary schemes of this kind. Therefore, it is only because this scheme now before us makes provision for the administration of part of it by my Ministry that we come into the matter at all. I want to make that clear, because it is very important.
The right hon. Gentleman is very keen on explaining to us that his responsibility is limited, and that he is not concerned with the merits of the scheme or its repercussions. Is he suggesting that the House is precluded from considering the wider issues?
I want only to get clear the position of the Minister under this Act. It is defined in the Section to which hon. Gentlemen opposite subscribed, and which was agreed to by all of us. The position now is that the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers have agreed on a supplementary scheme, and have submitted it to me. I am satisfied that the scheme is "expedient" and within the provisions of Section 83.
Many questions have been asked which it is frankly outside my power to answer. I can answer one or two. The first is why the first scheme is for miners. The answer is simple—because it was the first scheme submitted to me. The National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine-workers submitted it. If other industries, other employers or other trade unionists have not submitted schemes to me, it is not my fault. I must be restrained about this—because before I was a Minister I was a miner—but may I put this quite frankly to hon. Members opposite? They ask: "Why the miners first?" Do they really need to ask that question? The right hon. Member for North Leeds has taken no part in this Debate but for his intervention a few moments ago, but he did speak on this subject on 18th February, 1946. It is interesting to find what he had in mind then when he supported Clause 83. He said: He never mentioned any other industry or any other section of industry. Curiously enough—not that it was relevant—he never mentioned the disabled soldier. He spoke of the coalmining industry. Why did he mention this industry. If he put it forward then there is nothing wrong about our putting it first now.
I should like to give some figures for the pre-war years. They are substantially the same today. Twenty-two per cent, of the miners engaged in the industry received payment of compensation, and I presume, therefore, that this scheme came forward to me because the two sides—the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers—agreed that there should be a scheme to supplement benefits because of the incidence of risk in the industry.
This scheme is a contributory scheme. I as a Minister, and the Government, urged the view very strongly that we desired it to be a contributory scheme. I am quite sure that there is no provision under which I could reject a scheme because it is not contributory. If hon. Members opposite think that there should be no supplementary scheme which does not provide for some contribution towards benefits, why did they not provide accordingly in the original Clause? There was nothing in the Clause which said that I must reject a scheme unless it was 50 per cent. contributory.
It so happens that the National Union of Mineworkers wanted the scheme to be non-contributory. I urged that it should be contributory and I knew of the enormous saving to the Coal Board through the burden of workmen's compensation being removed from their shoulders. Indeed the right hon. Member for North Leeds said in 1946:— should be contributory. I did not reject the scheme because the contribution made by the men was not equal to 50 per cent. of the total fund. The men agreed to pay 4d. a week.
It was put to me, in the representations which both sides made, that they thought the men had gone to the maximum in making a contribution of 4d. a week, which is paying for what amounts to one-third of the benefits under the Industrial Injuries Act. As they and the employers had agreed that a contribution of 4d. a week by the men and 4d. a ton by the employers was, in their view, a fair distribution of the burden, on what grounds could I have rejected the scheme? Remember that the men are already paying 4d. for industrial injuries. Until we brought the Industrial Injuries scheme into operation on 5th July the payment of compensation was the responsibility of the employers alone. When this supplementary scheme begins the miners will be paying 8d. a week for benefits which before the 5th July were entirely the responsibility of the employers. For these reasons I found it impossible to reject the scheme because the contributions were not equally divided between employers and workers.
I want to find out exactly what the views of the Opposition are as to what the Minister ought to do, and I put this to them. Suppose a private employer comes to me with a supplementary scheme arranged between him and his employees. Are they suggesting that I should reject it unless it provides that the workers pay half the cost of the benefits? Will they suggest to those employers in private industry who are now paying two-thirds of the cost of private schemes that they should amend them? Do they really intend to operate one principle for the Coal Board and another for private industry? There are private employers who supplement sickness benefit without any contribution at all by the worker. Is that wrong? Where do we get to? Are we to follow this principle all round? I do not think they intend that.
Therefore, I say with respect to the hon. and learned Member for Daventry that half his speech tonight was completely irrelevant, and was really, if I may be allowed to say so, using this scheme as a stick to beat the Coal Board. He is perfectly entitled to do that if he wants to, but I suggest that it is completely irrelevant to what we have been discussing tonight. The next scheme which comes to me may come from a nationalised industry, or a board responsible for a nationalised industry, or it may come from a private enterprise industry.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is a special consideration in the case of a monoply which has been set up by the Government, a nationalised industry, where the whole of the cost is passed on to the consumer?
Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the cost of these schemes in private industry is not passed on to the consumer? I have had the great pleasure and privilege of the membership of the hon. Gentleman on many of our committees, and he has contributed much to the discussions. His point now however is no more relevant to this scheme than to any other.
The fact of the matter is that the total cost to the Coal Board of the main scheme of Industrial Injury benefits and of those of the supplementary scheme, will be eightpence per ton less than the cost of workmen's compensation before 5th July. Therefore, comparing the post-5th July position with the pre-5th July position, there is no cost to hand on to the consumer: there is a saving. There is a saving because the burden of the main scheme is borne by the contributors over the whole of the country. I suggest I could not have rejected this supplementary scheme on the ground that the contributions were unequal between the two sides, especially as they thought the workers' contribution was a fair one.
Then I am asked whether I should have insisted that the benefits provided should be exactly the same and on the same conditions, in the supplementary scheme as in the main scheme. It is very desirable indeed that a supplementary scheme should be patterned as nearly as possible on the main scheme, and I have urged that consideration on the two bodies here concerned and on everybody else. In the main they have followed the pattern. They make a payment for industrial injury, they make a payment for disablement pension, and these are a percentage of what we pay under the main Act.
The one point at which they depart from our main scheme is the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, in regard to widows. This was a matter of sentiment—let me be perfectly frank about it—and concerned the risk of accidents in this industry. The parties themselves thought that a woman who married a miner and takes a risk—the risk of injury to him—should be provided for. I can remember outside schemes of help for widows and collections made for widows, but here a definite provision is proposed.
The only other point of substance was raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who was opposed to the main scheme in the beginning. I was not. He raised a question, which must give us concern: Why should a man who is injured in an industrial accident get more than the man injured outside—in the road? Why should a widow widowed by an industrial accident or disease get more than a woman widowed by a natural disease? I agree, there is no logical answer. I can remember an old collier with whom I worked as a boy, telling me at one time of an explosion, a terrifying explosion, in which hundreds of people were killed. The conscience of the nation was roused, as it always is on such occasions. The heart of the nation was touched. The Lord Mayor made an appeal. Many people made appeals. The money rolled in to help the widows of the men killed. Old Dai Morgan, an old Welsh name—if hon. Members will forgive me for inflicting it upon them—said to me, "Jim, my boy, if ever I am fated to be killed in a pit, I hope I am one of a hundred, for then my widow will get much more." There it is. There sentiment comes in.
I, as Minister of National Insurance, have to try to get a relationship between the benefits of different schemes. I am as conscious as anyone—more conscious than anyone—in the House of the repercussions of one scheme upon another. I admit it worries me that the disparity between sickness benefit and industrial injury benefit is getting wider—getting wider partly because for increased benefits under the National Insurance Act contributions are raised. But there it is.
Not a penny of State money goes towards any of these supplementary benefits. Indeed, when we administer a supplementary scheme those responsible for the scheme are charged exactly what it costs us to administer it. There is no state money of any kind in this. It is financed completely out of the parties' own resources. If those responsible for a scheme did not choose to bring it to me for approval it could still grow up outside the Act. There are other schemes. One of the things I am being continually consulted about, half officially and half unofficially, are the countless supplementary schemes which existed before 5th July. There are superannuation schemes by the hundred, and schemes of supplementary sickness benefit by the thousand.
There were the friendly societies, but they were closed down.
The friendly societies were not closed down at all. Many of those responsible for these schemes feel they must now make a readjustment.
The question of supplementing state benefit by private arrangement is not new. The only new thing—and this is a very important matter under both the National Insurance Act and the Industrial Injuries Act—is that, when a body of employers and workers decide to set up a scheme, they have also to decide whether they themselves will set up a machine to administer it, and, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out, the cost of administration is often prohibitive, or whether they will ask the Ministry of National Insurance to administer it for them. If we regard this miners' scheme in this way, I commend it to the House as fulfilling completely the requirements which these schemes must fulfil under Section 83. It is because I believe it is a scheme which fulfils in every respect all the conditions laid down in Section 83, inserted in the Act with our joint approval, that I ask the House to approve it.
12.2 a.m.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) have not yet fully apprehended the reasons why we are criticising this scheme. One of the great advantages of the Act was that it provided a uniform scheme instead of the innumerable different ones that have prevailed in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is also responsible for the National Insurance scheme, with which I have had more than a nodding acquaintance in the past, and the whole basis of that scheme is uniformity. We believe that the Minister has a moral obligation to take into account the long-term interests of these various schemes for which he is responsible and to ensure that they maintain the sound basis on which they now stand.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be our answer if some other industry came along with a supplementary scheme. Is he to refuse it, or not? In the closing passages of his speech he said that there were thousands of supplementary schemes. There are; but we believe—and this is the gravamen of our charge, which we have brought forward on the first occasion we could, when one of these supplementary schemes came up for the approval of the House—that when those responsible for one of these schemes asks that it should come within the Minister's administration, he should take the long view that it is essential that that scheme shall correspond in its essentials with the existing machinery of the National Insurance schemes. We believe that. After all, we are entitled to our view and I am trying to put it forward without being provocative.
The essential part of all these National Insurance schemes is that the contribution is equal between the employer and the man. That is the basis of the existing National Insurance scheme. We say that ought not to be departed from without good reason. The Minister says that he did not initiate the scheme; and that the scheme was brought to him. But in Section 83 of the Act it was foreseen that the Minister might wish to alter a scheme and not to reject it. That Section provides that he shall only accept it and bring it before the House if he considers it expedient and desirable to bring it forward. He has the full right to ask for an amendment to any scheme, and to reject it if he so desires. Therefore, he cannot in those circumstances say in this House that this is a scheme agreed by the National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board, and that therefore he must accept it, and the House must accept it. He had every right, if he thought fit, to say to both sides, or to either side, that he did not think it was a scheme of which he could approve, and to say that it should be amended.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if that is the case, it should be stated precisely in the Act—that is, if the object is complete uniformity throughout the country?
No. I believe that the Minister has to exercise his discretion. As Minister of National Insurance, he is acting in a fiduciary capacity towards all the people in the country who are paying contributions. He has to regard this thing broadly in the light of his responsibility as Minister of National Insurance. Frankly, I believe that in his heart of hearts that is what he wants to do. We believe that in this case the Minister has definitely slipped up. We believe that this action which he is taking is very serious in view of the fact that this is the first occasion on which the question has arisen. It departs from the essential of equal contributions; it departs from the very object for which, as I understand it, the Act was passed, namely, to get away from the old complication of having to work out pre-accident earnings, with a view to everyone being given a flat rate of benefit according to his injury, and not according to his pre-accident rate of earnings. But this supplementary scheme, which is covered by the agreement of 2nd July, goes back in essence to the old bad system which we tried to get away from in the Act. Therefore, to that extent the Minister has made a serious breach within a few weeks of the Act coming into operation. In fairness to the Minister, I should say that he made no attempt to defend that.
Not only did I make no attempt to defend it, as being outside our scheme, but it is something they have agreed themselves, and in the administration of which I shall have no part. It is something which they must administer entirely themselves.
I think that is, if I may say so without giving offence, only partly technically true, because, after all, it is included in this order, and this order specifically refers to the agreement of 2nd July. It is quite clear that if the Minister objected to this particular provision—and I think that I should not be unfair if I said that he is not entirely happy about it—it was in his power to say to both sides, "I think it ought to be altered before I bring it before the House." He referred to the discussion on 18th February last and to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), when he said that he thought some of this might be given to supplemental schemes for the mining industry. But what the right hon. Gentleman did not quote were his next following sentences in which my right hon. Friend said that if the coalmines were nationalised, it would not be possible for the State to say, "We enact by statute a certain level of contributions for the population as a whole" and then to say a little later, "We, as a State, say that a substantially higher level of benefit is appropriate to the coalmining industry." The Minister might reply "We are not saying this is appropriate," but if he does, that is a subterfuge, because he has brought this scheme before the House.
It is not a subterfuge at all. It just happens that this is the first and only scheme which has come before us.
We are not saying that a higher level of benefits is applicable to the coalmining industry; the industry is saying it; but the Minister did not defend it, and he is agreeing it is appropriate because he is bringing it forward with his blessing. But another breach in the Act which he condones is an alteration in the date at which widows are to draw this pension. It was again laid down that there should be a standard age all over the country, but the Minister is condoning a breach of this. These are two very serious alterations in the Act shortly after it has become operative.
The right hon. Gentleman says this is a serious change, but it does not alter the Act at all.
It does not alter the Act, but it alters the application of it to a substantial body of women because the scheme provides that the women, instead of obtaining the benefit on attaining the age of fifty, will get it at the age of forty. So far as these particular women are concerned, that is a substantial alteration in their favour in the operation of the Act.
Finally, I come back to the earlier objection, which was that five-sixths of this is to be provided by the consumer directly in the increased price of coal. It is quite true that the coal industry was relieved of a substantial amount per ton by way of compensation which used to be paid in the old days before this Act; but that was spread by the Act over the whole community. The community now has to shoulder a much higher proportion than in the past of the cost of miners' compensation, and it is now being asked to shoulder additional burdens in the shape of the special direct contribution by the Coal Board of so many pence per ton. That is a big burden to place on the consumers of coal throughout the country in order to favour a particular class of the population, and no amount of argument can get away from that fact.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 7th July, be approved."
Gas Order (Sheffield)
Motion made, and Question proposed:
"That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on tne application of the Sheffield and District Gas Company, which was presented on 12th July and published, be approved.—[ Mr. Robens. ]
12.16 a.m.
I want to raise a point on this order. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question which is of some importance. He did not make a speech in submitting this order, and I feel that I am entitled to ask him for an explanation on this point. Section 3 (1) of this order says,
"Section 2 (Authorised amount of loans) of the Gas Undertakings Act 1929 shall in its application to the Company have effect as if the words 'one half of' were omitted there-from."
The relevant Section of the Gas Undertakings Act, 1929, says,
"Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, undertakers, not being a local authority, may borrow for the purpose of this undertaking on mortgage of their undertakings or by the creation and issue of debenture stock, any amount not exceeding one half of the aggregate amount of the paid up share capital for the time being of the undertaking and of any premium paid in respect thereof."
As I understand that, it means that they are allowed to borrow up to one half of the capital value of the undertaking on mortgage. My question is why, in this order, is the Sheffield Gas Company allowed to mortgage up to the total value of its capital? It seems to me to be even more curious that this provision should be granted when we are within two or three days of the country taking over this gas company. The matter will, therefore, concern not only the shareholders of the Sheffield Gas Company, but the entire people of this country, who will be part-owner of these gas works. I hope I have made my question clear, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would relieve my anxiety on the subject.
12.18 a.m.
I can relieve the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) in this matter by telling him that the Sheffield and District Gas Order provides for the raising of a further amount of approximately £600,000. The position is that there has been a heavy increase in the demand for gas for industrial purposes in the area served by the Sheffield Gas Company. The second point is that we are agreeing to the increase of their capital in order that they may provide for the extension and development of the company's gas-making plant. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have approved of this order, because obviously we cannot wait until the vesting day. with which this has no relation, to make further progress in the extension of the present works. They need further additional capital and, therefore, this order is before the House so that we can enable them to have the extra capital to do what is urgently required.
I thank the Minister for that explanation, which I think is satisfactory. I have no other objection. I wanted that point to be cleared up.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Collindridge. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.