COAL INDUSTRY (AMERICAN MISSION'S REPORT) (Hansard, 20 February 1945)

§ Miss Ward (Wallsend)
Parliamentary pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister of Fuel and Power to publish the report of the American Mission to the British coalfields. This pressure has failed to bring about publication of that report. My right hon. Friend has stated that he is 752 not prepared to publish it because it is a confidential report to the War Cabinet. On the face of it, that sounds a most reasonable explanation, very readily understood by hon. Members of this House. In fact, it is in accord with Parliamentary custom and tradition. I should like to submit, however, that a very different situation arises when one party to the report in fact discloses the contents of the report in another country, and that is why I am discussing this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. I might say, in passing, that there have recently been some rather unfortunate disclosures of private confidential papers which have been most embarrassing to the Allied cause, but that is by the way.
What are the facts? The disclosure of the whole of the details of the report does not appear to have been due to some unfortunate mishap or leakage. So far as I can make out, the disclosure was of deliberate intent, and was probably, although I am not very conversant with the practice in America, quite in accord with tradition and custom. I want to draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to a document which I have here. It is headed: Cleared and issued, per Office of War Information, and it is described as a brief summary of the report of the United States coal mission to Great Britain, presented to the Combined Coal Committee of the Combined Production and Resources Board. After the heading, there follows a very complete summary of the report. The position disclosed by that announcement is that, in fact, the Office of War Information sponsored the publication of this very detailed summary of the American mission's report, and, curiously enough, the whole matter was very fully dealt with in a technical magazine called "The Coal Age," in September, 1944. That technical magazine found its way into the Science Museum in Kensington where, for some period, it was open to anyone who cared to go to the Science Museum at Kensington. I understand that the technical magazine is no longer there for consultation, but I should not like to take a bet on that, though it is my information.
I have in my hand a summary of what was in that technical magazine, which I read with some interest because, naturally, I wondered whether an attack had 753 been delivered on the Mining Association, on the Miners' Federation, or, in fact on the Government, and I was very interested in that document. I cannot read the whole of it, but if any hon. Member would like to see it, I shall be delighted to let him have it. After discussing various aspects of coal production, the report says: In addition, the war produced increased mining strikes and more agitation for stiffer and stiffer control, to which latter the British Government assented. Yet, while accepting this added authority, the British Government has shown a great and marked reluctance to take any real action, such reluctance verging on fear. Even now, signs of any real coal-mining policy are hard to find. Regardless of where the greater measure of blame lies, the results have proved beyond doubt that Government Orders and Regulations are a poor substitute for efficient management plus labour team work. Further on, it says: The British public is far more tolerant of Government intervention in the industry and for more inclined whether correctly informed or not, to sympathise with agitation for added Government control. It goes on to say: Output per man per year in Great Britain has not improved on the 1890 figures. The reasons for this are: The unsound foundation to the industry; frequent strife; high cost of production; uneconomical transport; tendency of managements to cling to traditional methods and practices; tendency of British miners to dodge their share of responsibility for the promotion of low-cost production, and little effort by the Government to change the future for the better, despite all its expanding role in coal control, through sheer timidity. In fact, it looks as if the American mission's report was a very strong indictment of the policy of the Government, and one can very readily understand the reluctance of my right hon. and gallant Friend and the War Cabinet to publish, for the public to comment upon, this very important report on our mining industry. The House may wonder why I, a supporter of the Government, should feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to this incident, and I will tell the House quite frankly. I like fair and straight dealing, and I have always reserved to myself the right to criticise the coalowners if I so desired, or the miners, if I so desired, or to criticise the Government if I so desired. I have been about the country quite a good bit lately, and I observe a tendency, on the part of people who are advocates—and there is no reason why they should not be, from their point 754 of view—of the nationalisation of the coal mines, asserting on public platforms that the publication of this report has been withheld, because it contains an indictment of the coalowners, and that, in fact, the Government are protecting the position of the coalowners.
In an answer to a Parliamentary Question the other day, the Minister of Fuel and Power said he had no evidence that there was any propaganda, based on the non-publication of this report, by those engaged in nationalisation propaganda. I say quite categorically that the Minister was wrong, because I have been on platforms where these allegations have been made and I know the coalowners have, rightly, felt very resentful of the fact that, when they have got enough trouble on their shoulders, this added controversy has arisen and that they are charged with inefficiency by the American mission when, in fact, it is not true. There was no propaganda to this effect in the country, so I thought that the right and proper thing to do was to draw the attention—

Miss Ward
I thought it right and proper that I should have put on Parliamentary record what, in effect, the American mission had said about the Government. I understand that in the full report, the American mission have even gone further than that and have said that wherever they went they found a great lack of confidence in the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I must say that sometimes I am inclined to agree with them.
I am not, curiously enough, going to press my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to publish the report. I only want to have it put on the Parliamentary record that, whether it is the responsibility of my right hon. and gallant Friend, or of the Government as a whole, the Government have treated the coalowners very unfairly in this matter. I really cannot see why, if in a magazine practically the whole of the report should be available to anyone who is interested to read it, we in this country, about whom the report is made, and particularly the 755 House of Commons, should be precluded from reading what is contained in the report. It is a monstrous decision for the Government to have taken. I am not going to exert any pressure on my hon. Friend to publish the report now, but I want to say, on behalf of the coal-owners, who on this occasion I am defending, that the Government have not played cricket. I dislike injustice and I think that they have behaved very badly.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
I am astonished at the last few sentences which have fallen from the hon. Lady's lips. Why should she have raised this matter at all? There is a reason for raising it if she wishes to press the Government for publication of the report. There is not the slightest justification for raising the matter in order to make a few ex parte quotations from the report to give a certain impression as to what the report means. I am not going to imitate the folly of the hon. Lady but to press for the report to be published.

§ Miss Ward
So much the better.

§ Mr. Bevan
Why did not the hon. Lady say so, and not waste the time of the House by raising the matter, and then saying she was not really serious about it at all? We have asked on a number of occasions at Question time for the publication of the report. A lot of inferences have been made in the public Press about what the report means, and there have appeared from time to time in the American Press quotations concerning the British cotton industry. We are led to suppose that the same technical inditement has been made of the coal industry as was made of the cotton industry and therefore the report ought to be published. I do not blame the Minister of Fuel and Power for not causing the report to be published. It is not the responsibility of the Department at all. As we have gathered from time to time, especially by statements by the Deputy Prime Minister in answer to questions, the decision not to publish the report was one taken by the Government as a whole and, therefore, it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Fuel and Power.
I myself have not been able to understand why it is they have not published the report. We have had a report recently 756 by Mr. Foot. We are unable to judge properly of the merits of Mr. Foot's report unless we, at the same time, have at our disposal the report of the American delegation, and, as the question of the continuation of the Ministry of Fuel and Power will come up in the immediate future, I really want to press the point that unless the Government allow this American report to be published, the whole Debate on the future of the Ministry will be placed in jeopardy.
Of course, had we an Opposition in the House of Commons the Government would not dare to refuse to publish reports of this sort. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gets up at Question time and blurts out a few monosyllabic refusals on this matter, and gives no indication at all as to why he refuses to publish the report. Nobody pretends it is because of the national interest, nobody pretends there is any military security involved. He just blurts it out, and nobody can say anything at all about it. Had there been an Opposition in the House of Commons, the Government would not have got away with that childishness for a minute—

§ Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin)
The hon. Member does his best.

§ Mr. Bevan
I am bound to say that the public interest suffers from my inadequacy in the matter. It would be very much better for the interests of Great Britain if my pressure upon the Government were exerted with a greater measure of success, but so far I have failed. My hon. Friend says that this report condemns the Ministry of Fuel and Power because it shows how obviously national control has failed. It would surprise the miners to be told that the Ministry of Fuel and Power have ever been in charge of the pits. I have seen no evidence at all that the Ministry have reached the pits yet. They have been fighting their way to the pits for the last two and a half years, and they have not reached the pit top yet. Everybody who knows anything at all about the mining industry knows very well that the coalowners have been and are still in effective charge of mining operations.
Furthermore, I would say this for the coalowners and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, that it would be entirely unfair to blame either the coalowners or the Ministry for failure to instal much of the 757 machinery in pits that is called for. We have been absolutely unable to do so in the course of the war, and it comes a little hard from American critics of British industry to complain that we have not been able to bring about a capital re-equipment of our industries in the course of the last six years of warfare. Maybe we shall make some investigations into American industry just now, and find out that they have been able to re-equip their industries in war time, in which case we should have to ask ourselves whether their dedication to the war has been as wholehearted as ours has been in this country. I think we have had quite enough of this nonsense from the other side of the Atlantic but I suggest it is the Government which is mainly responsible for the fact that this whole thing has now been shrouded with suspicion. Why this Ku Klux Klan attitude towards British industry? Why this assumption that we are all carrying on our affairs over here in an atmosphere of secrecy? If the report is ill-founded we will, by public discussion, be able to disclose its defects; if, on the other hand, it is well-founded, we ought to hear what they have to say. There has been no justification from the very beginning for hiding this report from the British public, but I am astonished that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) should not have taken advantage of this opportunity to press for the publication of the report, but rather to use it for the purpose of trying to put a white sheet over the coal industry.

§ Major Braithwaite (Buckrose)
I do not often find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) but to-day I should like to join with him in pressing the Government for the release of this report of the American delegation. I met most of its members when they were touring round this country and spent some little time with them. I know of the very exhaustive work they did here, and the clear and concise picture they got of English mining. I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale say that he was tired of the nonsense from the other side—

§ Mr. Bevan
Of a great deal of the nonsense.

§ Major Braithwaite
I rather look to the other side as having been of the greatest possible help to us during these difficult 758 times. They have taken immense trouble to ship us great masses of machinery of all types to help us with our production problems, and delivered coal power loaders to us to such an extent that we could not use them in our mines fast enough, so that they had to stop delivering them. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were no use even if they could have been put there."] That is nonsense. I am sorry to disagree, but there are plenty of places where they can be used. There is, of course, the difficulty of training, but the Sheffield Research Depot set up by the Ministry will do a lot towards the successful mechanisation of the industry.

§ Mr. Bevan
My hon. and gallant Friend ought not to misrepresent what I said a few moments ago. I said I was tired of a great deal of the nonsense being talked on the other side at this particular time, and on this particular subject. It would be within the knowledge of every mining engineer that it would be quite impossible to instal much of this machinery in our pits unless the Forces released an immense amount of labour.

§ Major Braithwaite
I do not want to enter into a technical discussion with my hon. Friend. I know his knowledge of mining is very considerable, and we could debate this matter at great length, but I have in my hand a copy of the journal referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), "The Coal Age," published in America, in which there are extracts from the Commission's report. I want to put a plain question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Have the Ministry of Fuel and Power anything to fear from the publication of this report in this country at this time? If they have not, will they do what they can with the Cabinet so that this report can be released for the trade and industry to know what is in it? There is a suspicion in the minds of many people that there are things in this report which the general public ought not to know. The sooner we get that out of the minds of the public the better, because this great industry is in enough difficulty and trouble without having the issue confused by representations from any other country.
I ask my hon. Friend to ask his right hon. and gallant Friend to press upon the Government the necessity for the publication of this report. In the journal I have here there is a reference to the qual- 759 ity of machinery sent here for open-cast mining. There has been a good deal of criticism about the quality of these machines. Everybody knows that they have not been exactly what we have anticipated, but they have been a great help. They came from the other side at a time when they could ill afford to spare them, and I, personally, want to pay my tribute to the Americans for letting us have them when they needed them urgently themselves. I think that the production results coming along will show that the machines mentioned in this journal have been of the greatest possible help. Finally, I want to urge my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend to join with me in asking the Government to publish this report if no questions of security are involved.

§ Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin)
I should like to support the demand for the publication of this report. It has been talked about so much, and such probably inaccurate versions are circulated, that it is well in everyone's interest that it should be published. I agree that nothing could be worse for the industry than to encourage suspicions, whether against the men, the owners or anyone else. I should also like to emphasise the point that a great deal of nonsense is being talked about mechanisation. A great many collieries have large orders for new machines placed with manufacturers and are told that delivery will be in two, three or even four years' time. To suppose that there is some inefficiency on the part of owners, or some sulky resistance on the part of the men, towards modernisation of the pits is sheer and absolute nonsense. We are going to carry on as best we can until the War Cabinet decides to release sufficient labour of the right type to get mechanisation. I strongly support the demand for publication of the report.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith)
I should like to assure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) that my right hon. and gallant Friend regrets that he cannot be present. He has some other business, and he has asked me to deal with this question to-night. I find myself, like a great many others, in a dilemma. I have saturated myself with 760 the American report. I know it from beginning to end—every comma and full stop. I should be much happier if I were dealing with the pros and cons of the report, but I cannot do so. I am in the further difficulty that, if I were to affirm or deny what is supposed to be in it, I should be revealing something that I ought not to reveal. The issue before the House is why the Government have not published the report. Let us look at the position. The decision to bring over this Commission was taken by the Coal Sub-Committee of the Combined Production and Resources Board, and they came here to study and report upon the use of machinery from America being employed at open-cast sites and underground.
I met some of them, and I do not apologise for having met them. I wanted them to know something about British mining before they started their inquiry. They had about three weeks in this country; a programme was arranged by the Minister; they were given almost a free hand. They met everyone they thought it desirable to meet, they made contacts wherever they thought they could be useful and they met mineowners, managers, miners, mine workers' representatives. They made a thorough investigation. When the report was made, questions were asked in the House as to whether it was going to be made available to Members. The Minister said he would consider it, but he had to consult the Government. The Government decided that the report should not be published, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on 14th November, gave the reasons, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Thorneycroft), why it could not be published. Whether those reasons are good, bad or indifferent, it is not for me to say. I will detail what they are. One was that the report was one of many confidential reports made to a Combined Board, and that, therefore, its publication would set an undesirable precedent. Some of the information contained in it was given on the implied understanding that it would not be published. I know what that means. Anyone who gives evidence before a committee of this House or outside, and is told that what he says will not be published, is apt on occasion to say things that he would not say if it was to be printed.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
We are not asking for the evidence but for the report.

§ Mr. Glanville (Consett)
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is apologising for his Ministry or for the Government?

§ Mr. Smith
I am doing neither. I am simply detailing the reasons given by the Deputy Prime Minister why the report was not published. The third reason was that the decision not to publish was taken by the Government as, a matter of general policy. Therefore, the decision was not one solely for the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)
Ought not the Prime Minister, therefore, be here to reply?

§ Mr. Smith
My hon. Friend must understand that I, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, am simply doing what I have got to do. I am stating the sheer hard fact that the decision not to publish was a decision by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend and other hon. Members have said that the gist of the report has been given in the American Press. There was some leakage in America immediately the report was published, and, in order to counter that, there was released on both sides of the Atlantic a fairly full agreed summary of the report, a copy of which I have in my hand. Since then I have been told on more than one occasion that the contents of the report have been published in certain American journals. I have taken a deep interest in mining and mining literature and I read a good deal of what is said in this country, in America and in the Dominions about coal, and I have on this Table a copy of "The Coal Age" of last September which is supposed to contain the whole of the report. I can say that, while it contains something which is in the report, it does not contain the whole of it. If one could discuss the report one could perhaps dispose of a good many of the things that have been said.

§ Mr. Glanville
Why not answer the question: What does it leave out?

§ Mr. Smith
If I were to disclose what is in the report I should be doing the opposite of what the Government have decided

§ Mr. Glanville
That is what we want.

§ Mr. Smith
I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend because I have always recognised that, no matter what is in a report, if the contents are not made public there is a good deal of suspicion about it. Nobody is more conscious of that than I am. I cannot say, much as I would like to, what the report contains, but I do not mind saying that I have read a good many extracts in magazines and newspapers as to what is supposed to be in this report which are certainly not wholly correct. I have heard if said that this document is a scathing attack on the coalowners as against the miners, and also that is an attack on British miners as against the coalowners. I have heard it said that the British miner is being attacked as not being as good as the American miner. As a matter of fact I have been down pits in about eight countries and I have seen the mine workers in all those countries at work. As one who is never ashamed of his origin and has worked in the pits and spent 17 years of his life there, I say that I do not know any miner in this world who is a better craftsman, a better "scout" or works harder than the British miner, other things being equal. I am not putting him on a pedestal above anybody else, but I say that the British miner is as good as any miner in the world, other things being equal. He does as hard work.
I do not remember so many months when there has been so much persistence on the part of hon. Members of this House as on this particular question of getting this report published. With the best will in the world I cannot say anything more than this: the Government took the decision not to publish. If it is to be published, it is for the Government to alter that decision and it is not a question that can be decided by the Minister of Fuel and Power. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend said that she was speaking for the coalowners on this matter. I am not, nor am I speaking for the miners. I am giving a plain statement of fact.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
On a point of Order. If a matter is raised on the Adjournment, it is not the practice that the responsible Minister should be here to reply? We have now had a speech the main purport of which is to say that the Minister now before the House it not responsible. Is 763 it not discourteous that we should not have had before us the Minister who is responsible?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Major Milner)
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has presumably raised the matter with the Minister of Fuel and Power.

§ Miss Ward
I was advised to raise it with the appropriate Minister, and so far as I could see the appropriate Minister was the Minister of Fuel and Power.

§ Mr. Glanville
Is it not a fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is far more qualified to deal with this matter than is the Minister of Fuel and Power?

§ Mr. Smith
Repeatedly in this House the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. and gallant Friend the 'Minister of Fuel and Power and I have made it clear that the decision not to publish was a decision of the Government and not of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the only thing I can say at the moment, with the best will in the world, is that I can say no more than that. If the report is not to be pub- 764 lished, and that is the decision at the moment, I can say—and I want the House to believe me—that its recommendations have not been wholly ignored. They have been considered by the Reid Committee, and by the Minister of Works, who is in charge of open-cast workings.

§ Miss Ward
Can my hon. Friend tell us what are the recommendations?

§ Mr. Smith
I would like to, but I cannot, but the House can take it that the recommendations upon open-cast and underground mining have been considered by bodies like the Reid Committee and I am hoping in the near future that we shall get a report from that Committee to enable a policy to be formulated which will put mining into a far better position than it is at the present time.

§ Miss Ward
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—