HC Deb 28 April 1925 vol 183 cc113-25

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell]

Mr. BATEY

I propose to ask the House to give a little consideration to the condition of the mining industry. I put to the Secretary for Mines this afternoon a question which was very plain and simple. It asked the Secretary for Mines to state what steps the Government were taking to remedy the serious condition of the mining industry, and the reply of the Secretary for Mines was that he could not add anything to the statements made on this subject by the President of the Board of Trade and himself in the Debate of 9th April. The trouble is that on 9th April neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Secretary for Mines said anything that really mattered so far as the mining industry is concerned, and, from that reply, it does not seem as though the Government and the Secretary for Mines realise the serious condition in which the industry now finds itself. I desire to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the Government propose to do in order to help this industry, the position of which is getting worse week by week. It was had enough before the House rose for the Easter Recess, but it is even worse to-day.

In reply to a question which I put about a week before the Easter Adjournment, the Secretary for Mines said that in the County of Durham 75 pits had been closed within the previous 12 months. In Durham there are barely 200 pits altogether, and yet out of that number 75 have been closed within a twelvemonth, and it is estimated that there are, in Durham, 40,000 miners out of work. As a matter of fact, the figures for the whole country are very serious. It is estimated that 400 pits are not working and there must he not less than 160,000 miners all over the country out of work; but if the conditions of the industry throughout the whole country is bad, in Durham it is extremely bad. Our Durham Miners' Association pays a relief allowance to miners who have been thrown out of work —in addition to the insurance benefit—and for some time past, for every £I that has come into the fund, they have been paying out £2 in relief. That kind of thing cannot go on for long and the present condition of the industry calls for the serious consideration of the Government. One could have some sympathy for the Government if the cause of the depression in the coal trade were not well known, but even to the miners engaged in the industry, let alone to the Secretary for Mines, the cause of the depression is well known. We have in this present depression a feature which did not exist in other depressions. I have known depressions in the industry which were confined to the export trade and did not affect the home trade. I have also known depression in the home trade which did not affect the export trade. The unfortunate thing about the present depression is that it applies both to the export trade and to the home trade.

I desire to deal with the question of the export trade this evening because on several occasions recently in this House Members on the other side have ascribed the depression in the export coal trade to German competition. I do not believe German competition has anything to do with the real cause of the depression in the export trade. Let us remember that in 1913 the output of coal in this country was 287,000,000 tons and in 1913 the output in Germany was only 187,000,000 tons, and in that year Germany had to buy from us no less than 9,000,000 tons and was only able to export 34,000,000 tons. That was the condition of things in 1913, and we must keep in mind the fact that Germany has now to supply to France, Belgium and Italy reparation coal to the extent in round figures of 40,000,000 tons, while she has lost the Saar pits from which there was an output of no less than 14,000,000 tons. If we consider these facts we must see directly that Germany is not in a position to be a serious competitor or to be the cause of the depression in our export trade.

I know that some hon. Members opposite a week or two ago said that Germany was increasing the output of lignite. That may be true. Germany between 1913 and 1924 increased her yearly output of lignite coal by no less than 37,000,000 tons a year, and that seems, on the face of it, to be a big increase, but in other coal the decrease in the German output was no less than 22,000,000 tons. When we also remember that lignite coal is a coal of inferior character and can never be a serious competitor of, British coal, it will be seen that that cannot be the cause of the depression in our export coal trade. Although the Germans are working 84 hours per day, and a good many hon. Members opposite say that our miners should increase their hours and work as long as the Germans instead of seven hours per day, the fact remains that the output for the British miner per man shift employed is a quarter of a cwt. more than it is in Germany. One night, when the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir G. Doyle) was moving a Resolution in this House on the question of German competition, he referred to Stinnes and others bringing German coal into this country. He made that statement on the night of Tuesday, 17th March, and on Thursday, 19th March, I happened to pick up a newspaper referring to the statement that had been made by the hon. Member, and giving a report as to what the Germans were thinking on this question of competition in the coal trade. That report was from Berlin, and it stated: In point of fact, the import of British coal continues to irritate German coal owners. Nearly 7,000,000 tons of British coal reached Germany last year, and, although on a smaller scale, imports have been considerable so far this year. In neutral countries, according to statistics published here, British competition continues keen. Germany, in my opinion, is not a 'danger so far as the competition with British coal is concerned in Europe, except in Russia Germany is a danger in Russia, because we must remember that in 1913 we ex ported to Russia 6,000,000 tons of coal but last year we exported only 37,006 tons, which is an enormous decrease. In 1917 the then Government appointed a Departmental Committee to go into the question of the export of coal, That Committee reported in April, 1917, and, in dealing with the question of Russian coal, stated: Before the War, Germany was making a determined effort to seize the Russian market for imported coals. While the consumption of British coal in Russia remained practically stationary from 1908 to 1912, the consumption of German coal during the same period more than doubled. That was prior to the War, and I submit that, through the stupidity of the Government in taking up an attitude which prevents trading with Russia as we would like to see it carried on, instead of the Government encouraging the Russians to come and buy our coal at the present time, the Government are following a course that will tend to encourage Germany to get hold of the Russian market and keep us out of it for a very long time. In dealing with the export coal trade, the chief cause of the depression of the coat trade is to-day, as it was after the Treaty of Versailles, the fact that reparation coal has robbed us of the French, Italian and Belgian markets, and then the stupidity of the Government has robbed us of the Russian market.

I am going to suggest that there is only one remedy for the coal industry at the present time, and that that remedy is a subsidy from the Government to help the coal industry to tide over these bad times. In the Debate on the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, a little over a fortnight ago, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked us not to forget that he was the author of that Act, and that it was due to him and through that Act that we have received £25,000,000 as repara tion since the Act was passed. As a matter of fact, this country may have got £25,000,000 as reparation, but through that reparation the coal industry of this country has been ruined, and I submit that the Government would not be doing too much in giving back to the mining industry at the present time, if not the whole of that £25,000,000, at least a part of it, in order to help us to get over the present depression.

Now I want to say a word or two in regard to the home trade. There, we know just where the consumption of coal is lower than it was in previous years. Comparing 1914 with 1923, we find that the consumption of household coal is still the same, as is also the consumption of gas coal and of coal for the railways, and we find that the electrical undertakings have nearly doubled their consumption of coal, but we find that the depression in the coal trade in this country is in connection with iron and general manufactures and also in connection with the Navy. An hon. Member, just before the House adjourned for the Easter Recess, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of tons and the cost of the. coal consumed by the Navy during 1913 and 1924 respectively, and the answer was a startling answer. Indeed, I confess that when that answer was given, it. simply staggered me. The First Lord stated that, in 1913, 1,810,250 tons of coal were consumed at an inclusive cost of C2,081,800, as compared, in 1924, with 312,750 tons, at a cost of £534,000. There we dropped in money value from over £2,000,000 to just over £500,000, and it is a matter worth the consideration of the Government, at a time like the present, when the Admiralty has to buy oil from foreign countries, as to whether the Navy really does save by the burning of oil rather than by the burning of coal. Even if there be a slight saving by the use of oil rather than by the use of coal, I submit that the Government should seriously consider whether it would not be better to use coal in the Navy as they did in 1913. rather than to use oil.

I will not. enlarge upon the danger of the Navy being in a position of having to depend upon foreign countries for oil, but. if war broke out and any trouble took place, this country would be dependent upon foreign countries for oil, and even if the Admiralty should make up their mind that they are not going to use coal, I submit that the Admiralty and the Mines Department ought to consider seriously whether they will not extract the oil from coal rather than buy it abroad as they are doing at the present time.'

As to the less consumption of coal in the iron and general manufactures of this country, we must remember that the iron and steel and shipping trades are consuming much less coal than they did in 1913, and that to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been proposing to give a reduction of Income Tax to some of the men who will not consider the general good of this country, but who go away with their money and buy ships in Germany. I submit that at a time when the industries of this country are so depressed—not only the shipping industry, but the coal industry, which is dependent upon it—capitalists ought not to be allowed to spend money that they have got from this country. Some of us remember Sir Christopher Furness, and the father of the present Lord Furness, and we. remember that he got all his money out of industry, and especially out of the coal industry in Durham. After these capitalists have got money out of the industries in this country, they go into Germany and spend the money there for building ships there, and they leave our own workmen idle. That is the kind of thing that the British workman ought to be protected against.

8.0 P.M.

The Government talked at the beginning of the Session of protecting industries. Are they prepared to protect the workmen against the selfishness of those capitalists who are prepared to build ships in Germany simply to save £300,000, and allow British workmen to remain idle in consequence'? Free Trader as I am, I would go to the extent of protecting the British workman against capitalists doing things like that, and if capitalists, as the directors of Furness, Withy and Company have done, want to build ships in Germany, while our own men are idle, while the shipyard trades and coal mining are depressed, I would say, deport those men to Germany, and make them live there. Last year the Home Secretary deported a Russian, because he was in this country playing his fiddle. If a Russian has got to be deported because he is playing his fiddle in this country, there is more reason for deporting those who are spending money on building ships in Germany. I took up a picture paper a fortnight ago, and saw in it a picture of a lot of piping and machinery brought here from Belgium for the purpose of sinking a new colliery between Retford and Doncaster. When our iron and steel trade is in the condition it is, and the miners are idle, it is not the time for people to buy piping and machinery abroad, when they can get it at home. The Government ought seriously to consider preventing these capitalists from making such foreign purchases in times like these.

My remedy for the present depression, and until we get through the cycle of bad times, is to grant to the mining industry a subsidy. The right hon. Member below the Gangway in his book suggested that money should be taken from the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of assisting capitalists to find work, and he says:

" Why people should be so afraid of the word subsidy ' I cannot understand."

There I agree with him, and I want to urge upon the Secretary for Mines that, in view of the condition of the mining industry, the Government should seriously consider granting a subsidy to the mining industry, to help it over the present bad time.

Mr. TINKER

I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend, and at the same time sympathise with the Secretary for Mines for being brought here to-night. But until he will persuade the other Members of the Government to do something for the mining industry, we must take every opportunity we get to raise this question. In the last discussion he asked what could we put in place of the present system? I would remind him of the Sankey Report. One does not refer to that on every occasion, because one would expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman to he conversant with it. In that report it was made very evident that certain steps had to he taken if the coal industry was to live. From that time it has gone from bad to worse, se, and it is high time the Government did something. I would also call attention to the Buckmaster inquiry, which showed clearly that the industry could not carry on under present conditions, and that the wages paid were not sufficient. Since that time, and during the Easter Recess, I have been amongst the miners, and they have been asking me what the Government intend to do in this mining crisis. They expect something, especially after the speech made by the Prime Minister, when he said he was trying to do something to help the industries forward, and when we had to tell them that the Secretary for Mines gave his word that the Government can do nothing at all, but must leave it to the men and the employers to fight it out themselves, then I may tell the hon. and gallant. Gentleman things are getting very bad indeed, and there is such unrest in the mining community, that I am very much afraid that, unless the Government deal with this question, something very serious will happen. No one on these benches desires a strike. I know what a strike means. None of us want. to reach that stage, but, unless something is done, we are in danger of reaching it.

I think the Government, by the scientific treatment of coal, could do something to relieve the present situation. We are told that 385,000,000 gallons of fuel oil came into this country in 1924. By the scientific treatment of coal we could get to a large extent the oil which is now 'brought into this country. I understand the Government will not touch the question of subsidy, but I maintain that much could be done by the scientific treatment of coal to relieve the present situation. The Secretary for Mines, in his last speech. told us that that was being done, but it is not moving quickly enough. Before that can be. done effectively under the present method adopted, I am afraid the bottom will have dropped out of the coal industry, and we shall be faced with greater distress than has ever been experienced before in the industry. It is for the Government to take this matter in hand at once, and see what can be done. They cannot, as it were, sit on the fence waiting for the miners and coal owners to settle this question. We cannot settle it, I am confident of that. The present system does not allow of that. There is not sufficient money coming in to pay the wage we want, and, rather than pay any more, they have preferred to close the mines. We have had the statement from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that that has already taken place in his county, but I am pleased to say that so far as Lancashire is concerned it has not occurred there. But what has happened in Durham will surely happen in Lancashire, and right through the coalfields. Before that time arrives, we are very anxious that something should be done.

I join with my hon. Friend to-night for the purpose of saying once more how we feel on this matter. It may be said that this has been repeated too often, but things that matter can never be too often repeated. If we were to sit down quietly, knowing our position, we should not be doing our duty to our men. That is why we are taking this opportunity to-night, as we shall take every opportunity we can get to point out the serious position in which the industry is placed. I trust that we shall be able to get a full-dress Debate on the mining question, for I am not satisfied with having to wait for Adjournments to bring it forward. It appears to us that, with the exception of a few Members on the Labour Benches, no one is taking interest in the coal industry. Look on the benches here; look on the Conservative Benches—a mere handful of Members who are here out of courtesy, I take it, so that we may have a chance of airing our grievance. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to the attention of the Prime Minister how we feel on this matter. I can anticipate his reply to-night. He will, no doubt, tell us the same that he has told us before, that he cannot do anything, and that the miners and owners must fight it out for themselves. That will not, do. We want something more, and, whatever the consequences may be, we shall bring this forward on every occasion we can get, determined that until Parliament does deal with it, there will be no rest for the Government or Members of this House. We do not want to resort to other methods, but wish to do it by peaceful methods. That is why we are calling the attention of Parliament to the keen industrial distress in the coal-mining areas.

The SECRETARY for MINES(Colonel Lane-Fox)

I do not at all wish to blame the hon. Gentlemen for bringing me here to-night. They are always. very considerate in dealing with me, although the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tinker), who has just spoken, said he knew exactly what reply I was going to make, and then gave it in the form he expects. But it was rather a caricature of what I said on previous occasions, and, certainly, of what I shall say now. I will begin by saying I have practically nothing to add to what I have said before, and if the hon. Gentlemen will read the previous Debates carefully, they will find it is not fair to say that the Government have over and over again expressed the decision that they can and will do nothing. It is not fair to say the Government are not prepared to do anything. On previous occasions we have had to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that the question of internal arrangements in the industry, as to wages and so on, were matters which must be settled by the industry itself, that the arrangements in the industry must be by agreement between the various parties in that industry; but that is a very different thing from saying that the Government are going to do nothing to help the industry, to try to promote the industry, and to try to secure fair play in every possible way. The hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, asked that we might have a full Debate on the mining question. During the last fortnight before the Recess we had no less than three Debates on mining. A considerable number of hon. Members were in the House at the time, and we had a pretty full Debate. On each occasion I invited suggestions. I said the Government were quite prepared to listen to and welcome any suggestions that might. he made to get. the industry out of its difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the scientific treatment of coal and complained of the Government's inactivity in the matter. I would point out that this is being developed as far as it can be developed. We are hoping very shortly—I cannot give the full details now—to develop and encourage the process of low temperature carbonisation. It has been impossible hitherto to find any process which could he made a commercial and paying proposition. Government research is still going forward, and am hoping to be able to take a party of members down to see what is going on next week. The Government are doing all they can do in this matter, as previous Governments have done. Whether or not anything successful in this line will be the immediate salvation of the coal-mining industry, for which apparently hon. Members opposite look, is another matter. Still we hope for the best. Yet to suggest that by the means which we hope will be successful unemployment will immediately cease either this week or next is, of course. a statement. I should not like to make. The process will take some time to develop. It is going on very satisfactorily, and, as I say, I hope in a short time we shall be able to make an announcement as to how far we have been able to get.

Mr. TINKER

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication of the time when he will be able to make the announcement?

Colonel LANE-FOX

Obviously, I cannot. I am waiting most anxiously, hut to make any announcement before those engaged in the research are absolutely ready would scarcely he fair to them.

Mr. HARDIE

The hon. and gallant Gentleman tells us that a Department is busy with research in this matter. Will that Government Department take upon itself to say whether or not the low temperature carbonisation of coal is a good thing or not.? This matter has been looked into in Scotland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER(Mr. James Hope)

The hon. Gentleman must not now make a speech, hut he can put a question.

Mr. HARDIE

I was only desirous of having it made quite clear as to whether or not the experiments are proceeding on a commercial scale. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not the Research Department will take upon itself to say whether or not the working is upon a commercial scale? I want to know what is the basis upon which the decision will be made.

Colonel LANE-FOX

The matter may he described now as being well beyond the laboratory stage, and, of course, it has gone further than that. We are working towards the development of a scheme on a very much larger scale. There is no use in making any announcement until the experiments show that there is some real prospect of their being successful.

Mr. HARDIE

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that some years since hundreds, if not thousands of tons of coal were carbonised, and the results used in the way indicated?

Colonel LANE-FOX

I am aware that a great deal of that sort of thing has been done, and I am also aware that until quite recently we have not yet arrived at a commercial proposition in respect to low temperature carbonisation — one likely to yield a fair prospect of commercial success. The hon. Member for Spennymoor suggested that the Admiralty should give up the burning of oil fuel on the warships and revert to the use of coal. That, however, it is obvious, would not be a very easy thing to carry out. The same hon Gentleman suggested strong measures of Protection. That is a somewhat remarkable suggestion coming from the quarter it does. Such a proposal is a great development on what we have hitherto had from gentlemen opposite, and, perhaps, we may hope in the future to get closer together on these fiscal matters than in the past. Then reference was made to our export trade in coal. I do not think the limitation of our coal exports is only due to German competition. All over the world, and certainly all over Europe, the output of coal has very largely increased, and, therefore, competition in the neutral markets of the world is becoming more and more congested, and more and more severe. The principal cause for our present position, and for the failure of our export trade, has been that foreign competition has been so acute and is growing more acute every day. Also there is the fact that other countries are able to produce at a very much lower cost than we can do. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should endeavour to persuade foreign countries to adopt the same labour conditions as those we have in this country.

Mr. B. SMITH

Why not adopt the Washington Convention and be done with it.

Colonel LANE-FOX

It is not fair to say the Government are doing nothing. They have considerable schemes in view in the way of the development of the electrical supply and other ventures which will, we hope, increase the demand for coal. The home demand depends, of course, on an improvement in the home trade. We all hope that will come about, and I believe that already there are slight signs indicating that there is going to be a revival of trade. The moment that revival develops it will bring an increased demand for coal from the home trade. It is the coal-exporting districts which are peculiarly suffering at this moment. Our difficulties are due to the decline in the export of coal, which is due to various causes, but mainly and principally to the fact of the increase in the quantity of coal being put on the market at a very much lower cost than our coal. I do not know that there is much to be said beyond this. The Government are watching every process that is going on and following up every point to see whether any opportunity will present itself of helping the coal industry. If any hon. Member thinks the Government are being particularly remiss in any direction we shall welcome any suggestions. The main suggestion of the hon. Member for Spennymoor was that the Government ought to give a subsidy to the industry. The question of subsidy is one, as he knows, that is being generally considered, but if we subsidise one industry we have got to subsidise others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all !" and "The sugar beet industry ! "] At present there is just as much unemployment in the engineering and shipbuilding trades as in the coal industry and more, and everybody knows that we cannot subsidise one industry alone. I can assure hon. Members that if the question of subsidies has to be resorted to, and I hope it will not, I shall certainly do my best to see that the coal industry does not suffer. I do not think I can usefully add anything more. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to say that in their opinion I have said nothing.

Mr. B. SMITH

And said it very well.

Colonel LANE-FOX

They have said what they have had to say in perfect good faith, as I have said all I have had to say, and I am afraid I cannot add anything more.