FUEL SITUATION (Hansard, 2 April 1947)

§ Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)

The main purpose of the Debate upon which we are now to engage, is to obtain from the Government a clear picture of fuel prospects for the weeks and months ahead, and, in particular, further information as to the provision of fuel for industry, and the restriction of fuel for the domestic consumer. I think I can best begin by outlining the picture as it presents itself to us today, on the basis of the information which the Government have recently given. In the first place, we are told by the Government that the coal target for 1947 is 200 million tons. This, in itself, as a target is woefully inadequate, as representatives of both the Federation of British Industries and the T.U.C. have already pointed out. Moreover, it represents, as far as deep-mined coal is concerned, a production of some 15 million tons less than we achieved in 1941 by a labour force no greater and with less mechanisation than we have today. I know that all sections of the House will feel that this is a very disappointing figure. So much, for the moment, about the target for 1947 as a whole. Its implications will be clearer as this Debate goes on.

Let us examine the outlook for the next few weeks and months. As I understand 2042 the statements made to us by a number of Ministers, the intention, as far as hard fuel is concerned, has been to restart supplies at a figure of 33⅓ per cent. of the original allocation. They also propose to build up, if possible, from this level of 33⅓ per cent. to the 50 per cent. level proposed in the so-called Cripps plan. They hope to do that by the beginning of the coal summer, 1st May. We have also been given some calculations by the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister, to cover the six summer months.

The upshot of these various Government statements appears to be this: Our total requirements—I am dealing at the moment with the summer months, including the full requirements of industry but of course not allowing anything of importance for export—will be about 100 million tons, after making allowances for a saving of two million tons as a result of conversion to oil firing. This calculation of 100 million tons includes Ea million tons for restocking. This is the total that will be required to build up our stocks by the beginning of next winter to 15 million tons, a figure the adequacy of which, I am sure the House will agree, is very questionable. At any rate, it is the absolute minimum. That is the target for the six summer months. The production likely to be available, in the opinion of the Government—I base it on their statement—to meet this demand, falls short of this figure of 100 million tons which, as I have shown, is a very low estimate of what we need. There will be a deficiency which the Prime Minister told us might amount to as much as 10 million tons. I take this to be the difference between the requirement of 100 million tons and the estimated production of 89 million tons, which the President of the Board of Trade laid down when he opened the Debate on the Economic White Paper a while ago.

I ask the Government first, What do they propose to do about that? It is the intention of the Government, so far as we can ascertain up to date—and we will be glad if any further information can be given—to try to close this gap of 10 million or II million tons, by savings of about 2,500,000 tons from domestic consumption of gas and electricity and about 250,000 tons from restriction of passenger train services. By far the greater part of the shortfall, three-quarters of it, will 2043 have to be borne entirely by industry. I do not know whether that is a correct reading of the intentions of the Government, but all the facts are drawn from their own statements. I want the House to observe that this deficiency of industrial coal supplies for the summer, which the President of the Board of Trade estimated at 8,800,000 tons, is a very serious figure indeed. It is the equivalent of one-third of industry's total requirements for those six summer months. That is the picture as I understand it to be today, upon the latest information we have had from Government spokesmen.

Before I go on to speak of the effect of that shortfall on industry and on the domestic consumer, there is one remarkable point to which I must call the attention of the House. The estimate of the President of the Board of Trade for production for the six summer months was 89 million tons, without taking into account the improvement we hope to get. Of this 89 million tons, six million was to come from open-cast coal, and the remaining 83 million from deep mines. Yet in the six months of last year, which nobody would regard as a good year for production, the production of deep-mined coal was, itself, 89 million tons. In other words, the Government, from their own figure, are budgeting on a production of deep-mined coal this summer which is six million tons less than that of last year. That is to say, they expect a million tons a month less production during this summer than there was last year. This will be with increased manpower, certainly with more first-class miners back from the Forces, and with increased mechanisation. I confess that that Government forecast is quite inexplicable to me. I cannot understand on what it is based and why it is made.

Let the House look at it in another way. The estimate of the President of the Board of Trade works out at a weekly average of less than 3,200,000 tons of deep-mined coal a week. Yet last week, as we were all very glad to see, production exceeded 3,900,000 tons. Even allowing for extended holidays, or any other proposals there may be, it is a very wide discrepancy. The House is entitled to a clear explanation of these figures. Why is there such a vast difference between the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade of what the coal industry can 2044 produce in the summer months, and what it is in fact producing even in the present week. Why is the Government estimate of production for the summer so pitifully low?

I turn from that to the effect of these deficiencies, as the Government have described them, on the industrial and on the domestic consumer. There cannot be any doubt that at present industry is suffering, in all its branches, from a shortage of coal and the failure to provide more than 33⁓ per cent. allocation for many industries. I could quote many examples of the difficulties experienced, for example by the cotton spinners, paper manufacturers and others. Hon. Members may feel, at first sight, that paper does not seem to be of such vital importance. None the less, shortage of wrappings and packing materials can be a great handicap to our export drive, as the President of the Board of Trade would agree. I received one letter which particularly struck me from a representative of the leather trade. He tells me that the allocation they are receiving now means the equivalent of standing idle for two weeks and then working for one week. I am willing to hand the letter to the Minister of Fuel and Power if he would like it. But that is not all. Some firms cannot even do this, because of difficulties such as the length of processing, which are inherent in their particular industries. So my correspondent tells me—and I have no doubt at all about his bona fides—the result may well be to force some firms out of business altogether. That is an example of the real difficulties which are at present being experienced by industry.

I, therefore, ask the Government, What are the prospects of improvement? We have been told that the total fuel available for industry in the summer months is likely to be a little more than two-thirds of what is required. How is that available coal to be apportioned as between industries and different activities? This is of fundamental importance to industry. The general principle of the Cripps plan, as it was called, was, I think I am right in saying, that a basic ration should be guaranteed to all industries, and so far as I am aware nobody in industry today knows what that basic ration is to be from 1st May next. The Cripps plan also provided that over and above the basic ration, there would be a pool available in each region to make up allocations to the 2045 more important undertakings or processes. I ask the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, On what basis of priorities are supplies from these regional pools to be allotted? Is this to be determined centrally in Whitehall or in regions; if it is to be done regionally, are any principles laid down to guide the regions, and if so, what are those principles? On what list of priorities are the Government working? For instance, have they devised any plans for relating coal supplies to end products and for relating coal allocations to available supplies of other scarce raw materials?

I take an example to explain what I mean. I take the most important example I can, that of steel. Let us see what the position is there. Under the Cripps plan, the steel industry received an allocation of 75 per cent. of its requirements. I understand that is the rate which the industry is receiving at the present time. What is to happen after 1st May? Will the allocation continue to be 75 per cent. or will the iron and steel industry get its full too per cent? It is already well known to many hon. Members that the shortage of steel will cause almost as many difficulties to industry this year as the shortage of coal. Yet the production of steel is limited in its turn by the availability of coal. What priorities have the Government in mind for allocating available steel production? Will adequate steel be available, for instance, to achieve our export target of 135 per cent. of the 1938 level—[HON. MEMBERS: "140 per cent."]—140 per cent. of the 1938 level by the end of the present year which is laid down in the White Paper? If the Government decide that the steel industry must have too per cent. of its coal allocation to enable it to do that, what will be the effect on coal allocations to other countries? I really think the House must know these things, and industry must know these things too. The uncertainty facing industry today creates great difficulties. I must remind the House that 1st May is only four weeks off, and it does not seem unreasonable that we should now ask what industry is to receive on that date. So much for industrial consumption.

I turn now to the domestic consumer. The President of the Board of Trade told us recently—quite rightly—that there has already been a very large reduction in domestic coal allocation. It is, no doubt, 2046 in consequence of this, as the House can see for itself, that there was an increase in the consumption of electricity by the domestic consumer before recent events took place. The Government have decided that it is necessary to impose further reductions on the consumption of fuel this summer, in this case on the consumption of gas and electricity. This is a very serious business. No one should overlook the immense burden which the housewife is now carrying after six years of war. She is now called on to endure a further restriction for a long period. I have received—no doubt the Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House have also received—many heartrending letters about the conditions under which the housewife will have to work if these restrictions, imposed by the right hon. Gentleman originally for a very short time—at most a week—have to be continued all through the long so-called summer months. I use the word "so-called" advisedly, because we know very well what a British summer can be like.

There are housewives and their families who have no access, for instance, to industrial canteens. They have to manage as best they can, on the rations of the present day, and with the perplexities that cooking entails with the present allowances. Then there is the problem of household washing, especially in the case of families with small children. If, on top of all this, they have to look forward to fuel rationing, with its effect on domestic cooking and washing, throughout the summer months, it is hardly surprising that they should feel deep indignation. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will dispute that. The Prime Minister told us on 27th March that the Government's target for domestic fuel restrictions is a saving of 2,500,000 tons of coal during the summer in respect of domestic consumption of gas and electricity. How is this to be done? So far, I must confess, I have found the Government's statement of their intentions very vague and unsatisfactory. I hope we shall hear a good deal more about those intentions today.

Before I deal with the problem of rationing, I should like to ask whoever is to reply for the Government what consultations there have been with the electricity supply industries. One of the most serious criticisms of the Government, in respect of the sudden shutdown of electricity announced on that black Friday 2047 afternoon, was their lamentable failure to consult with the industry until it was too late, on the practical problems that would arise. I know, as does the Prime Minister, that the question of fuel rationing was raised during the war, and the Government were given the views of the electricity industry. Here I must turn aside for one moment to say that I hope we have now heard the last of blame being cast on some hon. Members on this side of the House, for criticising the wisdom of fuel rationing during the war. There have been many attempts to make party capital out of that, but it is perfectly clear now that the Government have been compelled to come to precisely the same conclusion as some of my hon. Friends and the Coalition Government. I know that the electricity supply industry was then consulted and I know the Government have recently, quite rightly, been in touch with the Central Electricity Board who represent the generating and wholesale side of the industry. I read in the Press that over last weekend, telegrams were suddenly despatched by the Ministry of Fuel to the supply undertakings inviting them to a conference. I ask the Government to give us any information they can about the results of that conference. It would be good that we should be told.

At the same time, could we also be told what is intended about gas? Is it intended that gas also shall be affected? If so, how and when? We ought to know so that there, again, the consumer may at least have a chance to make his plans ahead. Clearly, there must be every possible economy in the domestic use of fuel, but I doubt very much whether a rationing scheme is practicable.

The saving to be achieved—2,500,000 ton of coal—represents only four days' output at most, and less than half the six million tons which the Government's own estimate of these summer months shows the reduction to be, as compared with last year. That is a very remarkable thing. Can the Government tell us their estimate of the present domestic consumption, and what percentage of saving this 2,500,000 represents? The rationing scheme would mean a vast staff, an additional burden of officials, and, above all, a grave new burden on the household and the housewife. Even with the Government's well-known power of popular and 2048 lucid explanation, I doubt whether it will be very easy for consumers to estimate their consumption, and to calculate the best basis on which to interchange points for the various fuels, or to know, until too late, whether or not they are exceeding their ration. There, I am in agreement with the Government about the rationing scheme.

What is the alternative? I believe that the best method of tackling this problem of the summer months, as far as the domestic consumer is concerned, is by the voluntary method of appeal, and by giving the public all the facts. I say to the Government, as I said before, that it is their duty to tell the people all the facts all the time, and to trust them. I know that it is very difficult for Ministers to put themselves into the position of ordinary folk like us, but it is also difficult to expect people to give of their best, when, for example, they find that the Government's coal production target has been set so very low. It is difficult to expect people to do that when, for instance, so little effort has been made to restrict the sale of electric fires, or, shall I say, when every encouragement has actually been given to the purchase of electric fires. The Government must have known that for every one kilowatt domestic fire which may be sold, and which may cost only about &, the community is faced with a capital expenditure for new generating plant of not less than £40. I hope that we may hear from the Government a clearer account of this matter.

I have dealt with the position as we see it, and the effect of the coal position on domestic and industrial consumption. I would ask the Government some further questions about the practical steps they are taking, or should be taking, to bridge the gap between requirements and the supplies of coal. It is very gratifying to see the increase in recruitment for the mines. We all hope that this will continue, but, at the same time, I must ask the Government what progress is being made with the obtaining of Polish or other foreign labour, an I what is being done about imports of coal, on which subject there appears to be, shall I say, a certain divergence of emphasis, if not of view, between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fuel and Power, and, indeed, the Minister of Transport. Nobody denies the importance of the European Coal 2049 Organisation. I should certainly be the last to do that, but, if we have a case to put, why should we not put it to that organisation as forcibly as anybody else?

Are the Government instructing the National Coal Board to give urgent attention to the very serious problem of the quality of coal, and to the proportion of ash and other impurities which it at present contains? It is really most misleading to continue to base all coal statistics on tonnages alone, without making any allowance for the amount of extraneous matter, shall we call it, that now appears along with coal. I believe that some unfriendly persons describe this extraneous matter as "Shinwellite." However that may be, the calculations which I have seen, and which have been obtained from a wide range of industries, suggest that since 1939 there has been a decline of more than 5 per cent. in the calorific value of coal. Is that true? Look at all the waste that that involves in respect of transport, deterioration of plant and loss of thermal efficiency. I ask the Government whether they could not publish figures of the calorific value of coal produced, to be read in relation to the coal budget figures. That would give us a much more realistic picture of what has happened. I would particularly ask them to pay the closest attention to reducing the percentage of impurities in coal at present being supplied to consumers.

I would also ask whether something cannot be done to reduce the consumption of coal by the colliery undertakings themselves. If the figures I have seen are correct, the colliery undertakings at present take about one-sixth of the total used by all industrial consumers. I place coke ovens with the all-industrial consumers. That seems an extremely high percentage, and I wonder whether some substantial economies could not be effected there.

Before I close, I must say a word about electricity generation. Here, of course, the position is extremely serious. I would like to ask the Government what steps they are taking to achieve the most rapid possible expansion of our generating capacity. The main problems appear to be how to get the most out of our existing generating plants, how to increase production and to speed up the building of power stations, and the ever-pressing problem of exports. I referred just now 2050 to the question of the quality of coal. If we are to get maximum efficiency from our existing generating plant, it is of the utmost importance that electricity undertakings should be supplied with coal of a type and quality which will ensure maximum thermal efficiency. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this problem is of great importance to the electricity generating industry. Bow are the Government proceeding with their plan for spreading the load?

I would like to ask the Minister of Fuel to give us some information about the staggering of the industrial load, and then there is the question—perhaps the most important of all—of the construction of power stations. We were told that it now takes twice as long as it did during the war to complete a power station of comparable size. Can that really be true? If so, it is a most alarming fact. Can the Government tell us whether it is true, and, if so, what action they propose to take to improve the rate of construction which is of such critical importance? If we could do these things in the war—in fact, had to do them in the war—surely we ought to do them today, when the life of our industry and the continuation of our export trade are al stake? On the question of the provision of generating plants, I understand that the Prime Minister has recently been having discussions with representatives of the industry. May I ask him what is the upshot of those discussions? Are the Government now going to ensure that the necessary priorities of fuel, and so forth, to all those engaged in constructing generating equipment are made available, whether they are direct contractors or sub-contractors?

I want to say a word about the export of mining machinery and of generating equipment which we need for our own industry. I recognise how important it is to maintain our overseas connection for the future development of our exports of these commodities. No doubt, as time progresses, they will have to play an increasing part in our export programme. But I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of exporting these goods at the present time, in the quantities which have ruled in recent months. In particular, I would like some information about the exports of wagons, and the proportion of construction of wagons for home use and for export at present being carried out 2051 in the wagon industry. It is increasingly clear that transport is going to be a serious handicap in the maintenance of coal supplies, and, indeed, of steel supplies to industrial consumers in the course of this year. I have put a number of questions this afternoon to which, I trust, we will in the course of the Debate, be successful in obtaining answers.

I should like to finish by emphasising that the margin between our coal requirements and the production which the Government anticipate in their figures is relatively small. We cannot, at present, increase our exports of coal. How valuable it would be to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if we were in a position to export a few million tons of coal at this time. How pleased the President of the Board of Trade would be if he could send some coal to Scandinavia in exchange for timber. What would not the Minister of Food give to be able to send coal to the Argentine in exchange for fats and feeding stuffs. If only we could get back to our prewar level of exports, how much better off we should be in many ways. Apart from all this, I feel that the gap between the Government's estimate of production and the minimum requirements for home needs and essential exports, which both sides of industry agree to estimate at 220 million tons, can be bridged by increased production.

The Government's targets are so astonishingly low that I would ask them what it was that determined them in making such estimates. If we want the nation to make an effort, as we all do, surely it is better to put up our sights, rather than to place them so low as to dishearten all those whose effort depends on the production of coal. If only we could get the level of production back to what it was in 1941, we should get 215 million tons as against our minimum requirements of 220 million. But, far from getting back to the 1941 level, the Government, apparently, have calculated on the basis of one million tons a month less deep-mined coal than was produced last year. The gap to be closed is relatively small, but the injury that is, in consequence of this present gap, being inflicted upon our industry, upon our export trade and upon the unfortunate domestic consumer, is out of all proportion to the amount of coal involved. It 2052 is the Government's duty to spare no effort, at home or abroad, to bridge that gap. On no account can we contemplate a repetition next winter of what the nation has been called upon to endure this winter. On that, we are all agreed. But are the Government facing up to the situation? All that we can do is to make the constructive suggestions that lie in our power. The House awaits an account of the Government's stewardship and of their plans for the months that lie ahead, so that our industries may be given the best opportunity to raise the standard of life of our people.